04.26.2011 06:37 AM

KCCCC Day 32: Three strikes, yer out – plus Harpo quotes and Kent’s anti-Israelism

What did Peter Kent think of Israel before he was an MP? from Peter Kent Watch on Vimeo.



  1. George says:

    speaking of Harper quotes, here’s something from Ignatieff – caught again Iggy!

    • MontrealElite says:

      Lies are terrible aren’t they?

      “I will not tax income trusts”

      “I will not go into deficit”

      Oh, and George, I think you’re a wonderful fellow.

      • George says:

        the point Elite is that Ignatieff’s got a long, long list of his own. Seriously though I think that the LPOC just did Harper a huge favour by listing his quotes by getting them right out of the way. This too shall backfire.

        Warren’s column is correct.

        • MontrealElite says:

          I think embellishing quotes on personal experiences is a far cry from outright policy laws.

          Iggy’s version of Balkan events was no cash out of my pocket, Harper’s income trust lie was a whole other thing.

      • Dr.J says:

        Wasn’t the income trust thing like last election? Didn’t the government need a majority in the house to get ther deficit budget passed? Didn’t all parties say last election they wouldn’t go into deficit? Liberal partisonship in this current Liberal party climate is just sad to read…but whatever gets your through the day…quick maybe you can provide us proof that the PM was indeed the second gunman on the grassy knoll!! Our side gets it…the PM is evil!! Yada,Yada,Yada!!

        • MontrealElite says:

          Didn’t the government need a majority in the house to get ther deficit budget passed?


          So unlike Harper, you admit minorites work.

    • Namesake says:

      I dunno: you conbots are so eager to find something damning there, you’re willing to swallow a hatchet job from a jealous rival w/o any scrutiny or regard to how the objected to alteration is actually protecting YOUR values, too (by ‘supporting the troops’).

      Read the original article that Janke seized upon:

      MI’s point in using this anecdote in the infomercial — which is the one that history prof. Sainsbury is really objecting to — is that he’s not a typical ivory tower academic: he’s actually been out there in the world, including in some very hairy situations, and he knows that the truth can sometimes be a lot messier than black and white.

      And it wasn’t swift boating: he wasn’t extolling his own bravery, but that of a Canadian soldier who was guarding him and his journalism crew from the 15 armed, liquored-up Serbian paramilitary who stopped them.

      So he didn’t intimate that the soldier was scared, this time; why should he?

      And so he didn’t mention that they all got arrested (& later released), anyway, and fictionalized the ending, somewhat.

      But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe that the young soldier didn’t actually save all their lives, nevertheless.

      He might honestly believe that the first Serb (with the “dead eyes”) who’d accused them of being spies and seized control of their vehicle might’ve been intending to take them out to summarily execute them; and the Canadian soldier did eject that guy from their vehicle (in both accounts).

      That’s not an idle speculation: these were, after all, “the first conflicts since World War II to be formally judged genocidal in character and many key individual participants were subsequently charged with war crimes,” with the Bosnian War he was covering “marked by the killings of captured soldiers and heavy civilian casualties.”

      So, fine, they did get taken to a police station, and released, by another not-as-drunk, and not-as-dead-eyed insurgent; so what.

      MI’s point, which not even that Brock Prof’s slur could change, was that a Canadian soldier did intervene to protect the lives of some international observers of a genocidal conflict, and that is a commendable thing. Do you disagree with that?

  2. Nastyboy says:

    The biggest mistake the Libs made was assuming the rest of Canada hates Harper as much as they do.

    • The Other Jim says:


      • MontrealElite says:

        Polling @ a top of 40% means they do.

        Unless you have some new kinf of conservative math where 40% is a majority of voters.

        • Nastyboy says:

          Not voting for and hating are two different things.

        • The Other Jim says:

          There’s a difference between someone who has little-to-no interest in voting for the Harper Conservatives (me, for example) and those who suffer from Harper Derangement Syndrome (you, for example). The biggest problem with the latter group is that they assume those in the former detest the Prime Minister and shape their rhetoric/strategy/viewpoint accordingly.

          • Nastyboy says:


            Harper Derangement Syndrome led the Libs to believe that by merely forcing an election, that Canadians were going to “Rise Up” and turf the devil they know for the devil they don’t.

          • The Doctor says:

            Paul Wells identified this problem in LPC thinking quite a long time ago, in one of his Maclean’s articles. The particular object of Wells’ criticism was Sen. David Smith, who made some comment to the effect that Canadians disliked Stephen Harper. Wells took the liberty of modifying Sen. Smith’s statement: “Most Canadians who David Smith knows or hangs out with dislike Stephen Harper.” (paraphrasing there)

            That’s an important difference, and one that, IMO, a lot of Liberal strategists and supporters fundamentally failed to grasp.

    • Riley Robertson says:

      But they do. Ekos poll has Cons at 33% … that means 2 out of 3 of us don’t like your team. Canada is not a conservative country, no matter how much you try to push us around. One thing Canadians don’t like is anything that smacks as unfair. So they don’t like that the Liberals funneled money to their friends via Sponsorship program…they don’t like that Liberals don’t elect leaders via one member one vote, they don’t like the perception that someone goes away for most of his adult life then comes back with the assumption he’ll be coronated PM. But what they hate worse, is when parties like the Cons use tax dollars to buy useless, overpriced jets, thanks to the lobbying efforts of a guy who is now a Conservative candidate. They don’t like that the handful of people with all the money don’t pay their fair share of taxes. They don’t like Harper’s bullying of even his own caucus. They don’t like the gross unfairness that his policies are creating — a drop to 24th in the world in infant mortality. They don’t like that companies that lay off workers or poison the earth digging tar out of the ground should get tax cuts while everyone else gets their services cuts. THAT’s why the NDP is surging. The NDP is surging because Jack is offering something substantive — real spending where it’s needed, such as targeting generous spending on the relatively small number of seniors who are really poor ($2,000 a year more cash) while the other guys give peanuts to too many people to make any difference. In 5 seconds Jack will eliminate poverty among seniors and spend not even as much as the other parties doing it. The NDP has been in power in many provinces and territories and has the best fiscal record in terms of percentages of budgets balanced (the Conservatives have the worst record). Conservative economics don’t work. Cutting taxes doesn’t increase tax revenues (it doesn’t make sense on the surface and it only creates deficits in reality — it has everywhere it’s been tried) People have common sense. They’re finally taking a look at the NDP and like what they see.

      • Philip says:

        Quoted for truth.

      • The Other Jim says:

        By your own logic;

        Ekos has the NDP at 28%, which means that more than 2 out of 3 Canadians don’t like their team.
        Ekos has the Liberals at 23.7%, which means that 3 out of 4 (!) Canadians don’t like their team.

        How wonderful of you to speak on behalf of “Canadians” and detail what we like and don’t like. Yes, Ekos has the Cons at 33%, but other polls have kept them consistently in the 39% range. Outside of Quebec, they have been in the high 40’s throughout the entire campaign. The NDP is still a distant third in Ontario (although I do expect that the Orange Surge will push their numbers upwards in Ontario this week). Are the almost 80% of Ontarians voting Liberal and Conservative “not Canadians”? How about Albertans? Don’t they count?

        You comment that people have common sense, but utterly dismiss the plurality of people who are not currently supporting your party. Is it only common sense if Canadians agree with you? There are several compelling points in your post (about why the NDP would be a good choice), but it is all undermined by your arrogant tribalism.

        • Riley says:

          With respect, you misunderstood me (not difficult given the admittedly rambling “crazy lady” feel of my rant). I know fewer individuals support the NDP than the Conservatives but that doesn’t matter because the NDP Liberals Greens and Even the Bloc have a more similar view in terms of most social policy and a general understanding that were all better off when we work together as a nation of citizens through the parliament that we elect. The Cons believe its ok for the state to kill it’s citizens. They believe it’s ok for the state to decide who gets to marry and what women can do with their bodies and what we can download on the Internet and on it goes. The cons think that we’re ruled by men while everyone else knows were ruled by laws. You even can read conservative commentators using the word “rule” and ” rulers” in reference to the government. That is a scary misunderstanding of our country and its institutions. We’re ruled by the constitution and the charter and bill of rights. Harper doesn’t make the rules. He’s not my ruler. He’s a phony and non cons are sick of him pushing us around so most of us are going to give him a good working over on Monday — if our phony electoral system doesn’t let us down.

          • Bruce M says:

            Absolutely wrong. Liberals like to pass laws governing everything. Instead of respecting Human Rights, they create Human Rights Tribunals and order people to pay over 20,000 in fines for insulting a heckling woman attending a comedy show. Gun laws that stop no crimes and affect only law-abiding citizens, and census laws that make non-completion a jail-worthy offence. Canadians work better when they are not given special statuses and lorded-over with well-intentioned laws that restrict our human nature and encourage dependance. Even the “helpful” concept of equalization has been so abused that it locks populations into areas where growth is limited. And enhanced EI for living in a depressed area merely encourages stagnation.
            The federal government has a role, but it is NOT the Liberal dream of regulating all human interaction.

  3. MontrealElite says:

    As for the 3rd mistake, I don’t see how you can find a government in contempt and still let them govern.

    It ain’t over until Monday.

    The Royal Wedding is on Friday but we’ve been royally screwed since 2006.

  4. Dr.J says:

    I agree with your points sir….I think it is going to be bad for the Liberals but not as bad as some people think, I do not think Stornaway is in play even with “Super Jack”…the Liberal brand is just too strong but afterwards I think Iggy will be toast as leader. Watching Ian Davey on PP last night was re-freshing, no spin, just honesty about the Liberals situation…he sees the writing on the wall however, Delacourt still sees things through red partison glasses. Maybe living in the Liberal bubble for so long has clouded her judgement.

  5. MontrealElite says:

    NDP wins 3 seats in Qc. , no more.

    Outremont, Jeanne-Le-Ber, Gatineau.

    Believe it.

  6. CQ says:

    The fourth strike is the timing of the federal Liberals non-confidence motion. Factor One, they missed having a ‘final’ G20 audit report which would have been made public. Factor Two, SunTV News was scheduled to get its immediate ‘impact’ audience with a long struggled mid-April lauch date. Plus the controversy of NOT-maybe not receiving fair dial placement from its Rogers/Bell/Shaw competitors. Factor Three, PM Harper either looks great for being at this Friday’s royal wedding – mere days ahead of the vote, or his opponents look bad for causing his campaign neccessitated absence. And then there’s Factors Four and Five; the Manitoba seasonal floods and early round, Canadian team guaranteed hockey playoffs. They should have helped pass the budget and then set for a May/June campaign.

  7. The biggest mistake Liberals made was the conspiracy against Jean Chretien (who would mop the floor with the NDP were he the leader, IMHO) by Paul Martin’s people. This led to Martin’s coronation as party leader and ultimately to the end of the Liberal dynasty in Canada. What is happening now to Liberals started back then.

    • Warren says:

      Yeah, and they’re back at it. Martin’s press flak and his court jester (the two Scotties) have been taking swipes in this direction in the past few days. The Board has decided to reassert itself, I suspect.

      And we all remember how well that turned out, eh?

      • Indeed. If you run, they’ll be gunning for you.

        • Warren says:

          I’m counting on it.

          • Cath says:

            It’s like the culture of entitlements began with Martin and continue today with Ignatieff vis-a-vis his coronation. What I’d like to know is that which one of the board members actually thought that Ignatieff was a great fit for the LPOC in the first place? Moving ahead and if I were one of those ignored grass root Liberal members I’d want to be darn sure The Board never got near another candidate any time soon.

          • Craig Chamberlain says:

            So, you are saying let’s move in with the neighbours even though we can’t live with ourselves?! How is that going to work?!

          • Craig Chamberlain says:


            The problem is simply that we have too many people trying to show they are smarter than the other guy in the party!

    • JStanton says:

      … are we allowed to make that point now, and name names, so the purge of lying, stinking, disloyal greaseballs can commence forthwith???


  8. Smith says:

    The other mistake Liberal campaign has made is to run on “process” issues rather than on substance. Iggy’s communications guru Donolo seems to think Canadian elect governments on such calls to “rise up”, “issues of contempt” and “democracy.” It has always been about the economy and yet – they have failed to speak to the voters and their pocket books. Iggy with Donolo as Chief has been a disaster. Ian Davey must be sad to watch this train wreck and what has become of a guy he respected and a party he worked to rebuild after Dion.

    • Nastyboy says:

      Remember when, according to all the Liberal pundits, Donolo’s return was going to usher in a new era of Liberal Party domination? Good times……..good times.

    • JStanton says:

      … so you say. Yet Mr. Harper’s mismanagement of the economy, his over-spending on toys and pork-barreling, his gutting of our manufacturing and value-add sectors and his forcing us to slip back to being principally commodity workers has not affected his core supporters in the least.

      Are they not bright enough to understand their predicament? Are they simply gullible consumers of his deceit?


    • Riley Robertson says:

      People don’t vote on the economy the way most people think. They are realizing there’s too much poverty because the people with all the money don’t pay taxes, and the 20% of the country that’s really poor doesn’t make enough money to benefit from tax cuts. They need more money in their pockets to begin with. The NDP would eliminate poverty with simple cash transfer to people who need it like is done in Scandinavia where people live better, unemployment is lower and co-operation is the norm. People know that tax cuts lead to service cuts — every single time. You can’t have Swedish services on an Alabama budget.

  9. Michael says:

    A lot of the “mistakes” made by the Liberals can be attributed to lack of election preparedness and most importantly, lack of fundraising.
    The Conservatives were able to roll out their attack ads over the last few years because they had the money to do so. The Liberals didn’t respond, not because of some high-minded principles, but because they didn’t have the money to respond.
    Over the life of the Conservative minority, the Liberals have voted with and propped up the Harper government on numerous occasions. Why? They were not prepared to fight an election, and they didn’t have the money to fight an election. They could not act like the Opposition because they did not want to take the chance of forcing an election. The NDP took advantage of this and hammered away on Harper and took credit for extracting budgetary concessions.
    The Conservative minority of the last five years was like a mirage to the Liberals. They thought they were so tantalizingly close to government they did not rebuild. They thought they were just one messianic leader away from regaining power.
    I am sure you know this Warren, but the Liberals on the ground, have very little in the way of organization. Though I have always voted Liberal, for the first time this election I decided I wanted to make a bigger difference and volunteer. It took two e mails and two weeks for someone to get back to me. And then it was half hearted.
    It may have been a short term mistake to force an election in 2011, but what choice did Igantieff have? He could not in all good conscience continue to prop up Harper. And if he had continued to prop up Harper for a couple of more years, what would be different? Nothing. The fundraising and organization would still be weak, and the NDP would be in a better position, able to paint the Liberals as Conservative-Lite.
    No, it’s best in the long run to stand on principle, take your lumps from the electorate and rebuild.

  10. The Other Jim says:

    Random observation time. There is an advance poll taking place at the same arena as my son’s lacrosse try-outs. I noticed a steady line of people during the entire time we were there. They were packing up at the same time we were leaving and I made an off-hand comment that I should have voted while I was there. The Elections Canada worker walking beside me responded that I would have had to wait an hour in line to do so.

    I don’t know what that means, but an hour long-line up all evening for advance polls suggests that somebody is getting the vote out.

    • reformatory says:

      Hey look what the cat dragged in– from Asylum– were you that busy stumping for your local CON candidate?:o)

      Are you thinking that all the people in line are voting one way? OUCH–

  11. Bell says:

    I agree with Warren’s 3. As I have stated before on this site, my number 4 reason is picking a fight where you are up against a cancer fighter just coming off of hip surgery. Every vote Iggy beats out of the conservatives or bloq and many of his existing votes just bleed to the guy suffering but still fighting.

  12. artwilliams says:

    All the partisan attacks and wishful thinking amuse me. Guess I am not very partisan any anymore.

    Listen up! There is an Orange wave in Quebec. The NDP will pick up more than a handful of seats there but we are in uncharted territory. Think of Brian Mulroney 1988, Bob Rae 1991, Frank McKenna 1987. I am not saying Layton will be PM but just that this election has become unpredictable and volatile. It could be 4 seats or it could be 40.

    Laytonmania – if you will – could spill over to the rest of Canada … or not. That could mean a Conservative majority … or not. Seat prediction models don’t mean much in these situations.

    Thing is, there is no upside for the the Liberals because they’ve lost all momentum this election. Actually, I am not sure they ever had much. All they can hope for is Jack to make a big mistake so that his momentum eases and they are the beneficiary. The Liberals need to take their lumps and finally do some REAL re-building from the ground up and not some coronation like with Iggy.

    BTW, before you attack me – I’ll be voting for my local Liberal candidate on Monday. I’m not interested in a Harper majority and I live in a Red riding.

    • JStanton says:

      … I’m not sure I care anymore. We need a major game-changer in federal politics; at this point anything will do.

      It’s an easy one for me – I live in an NDP riding with a pretty good incumbent, and a novice Liberal candidate who, despite being probably a decent man, cannot possibly win.

      In other words, I can vote for the Dipper incumbent to reward his good service, or for the Liberal novice, for old time’s sake. Either way, my vote can have no effect.

      On the flip side, I managed to put the fear of God into my father, who has long since abandoned the electoral process in disgust, by convincing him that his not voting was really a vote for pipsqueak poilievre. That got him riled enough to vote Liberal in the advance polls.

      You get ‘em where you can.


      • artwilliams says:

        Don’t forget that unless Harper wins a majority you’re also directing a $2.04 (Q4 2010) yearly vote subsidy to the party that gets your vote.

        My wife is voted NDP to send the Liberals a message that they need to get their act together. I wonder if others are thinking the same. Oh boy!

  13. Rocky says:

    MCGILL BUSINESS ‘GURU’ MINTZBERG FEARS A HARPER MAJORITY When you listen to the most-repeated selling points in Conservative leader Stephen Harper’s election campaign, high on the list is his campaign’s business-friendly agenda of corporate income-tax cuts and steady economic leadership. Why, then, do we find one of Canada’s leading business scholars, McGill University’s Henry Mintzberg, waging a determined campaign to prevent Harper from achieving the majority that the Conservative leader insists is essential to safeguarding Canada’s best interests? Mintzberg has spent the current campaign saying exactly the opposite: that far from safeguarding Canada’s future, a Harper government would undermine it. The home page of Mintzberg’s website (www.mintzberg.org) is now entirely devoted to the election, featuring arguments against voting Conservative and advice on voting strategically to prevent a Conservative majority.

    The Gazette



  14. J.G. Love says:

    The documentary is chilling for what it shows and I don’t get how you can describe it as despicable. Have you actually watched it and if so could you abide the treatment the occupied are shown receiving.

  15. James says:

    Hi Warren, I doubt that rehashing quotes of Harper from the 1990s will have any affect. Besides, Liberal commentators on CTV’s Power Play yesterday (both the 5 to 6 and 8 to 9 p.m. segments) said it was a pointless exercise. So who’s idea was it anyway??

    Can I add one failing of the Liberal Party? Trying to be all things to all people, leaving them wondering what they really stand for.

    Didn’t everyone get a total laugh over seeeing teetering, old Jacques Parizeau trying to salvage the BQ campaign??!! Is this what it has come to for the BQ?? The optics were hilarious.

    Chantale Hebert wrote a great article in the Toronto Star this morning about Duceppe. She argues that Duceppe has long worn out his appeal as leader and should have stepped down to make way for fresh leadership years ago. But as I’ve said, BQ MPs are political lifers who truly enjoy life on Parliament Hill.

    • MontrealElite says:

      You are right but at the beginning of the campaign she said Duceppe had nothing to lose.

      Colums written in the rear view mirror mean little.

  16. MontrealElite says:

    Nastyboy says:

    April 26, 2011 at 8:30 am

    Translation: “It’s OK when my guy does it.”

    Nope, it’s okay when it doesn’t affect the citizens of a country.

  17. jack says:

    The problem with the libs is they give up a week before the vote. This kind of analysis should be done after the vote. The polls are all over the place but rather than focus to get the job done, everyone becomes an armchair quarterback and seems to pull out some sort of “I told you so” card. No team or party or competition of any kind needs that.

  18. Riley Robertson says:

    Doesn’t it seem like something is wrong when everyone knows what the polls say but nobody has a clue as to how many seats a party will get … or that it’s even possible to get a (phony) majority with less that 50% of the popular vote? We have a steam-age electoral system that produces phony governments (is that why we have a phony economist misleading the citizenry about the basic rules of parliament?) Nobody believes anything because you can’t believe our system. Nobody ever gets the government they vote for. It’s s sham, regardless of what happens on Monday.

  19. artwilliams says:

    Here is the new NDP ad. They’re approaching the finish line with a “feel good” ad.


    • MontrealElite says:

      Imagine a leader who lives in fantasy land who thinks he can come up with 3.8 billion this year with a cap n trade system….that isn’t in place, has no mechanism or blueprint.

      Imagine a leader who would cajole federalist quebecers while not telling them he would repeal the Clarity Act.

      Imagine a leader who favours extending Bill 101 to all Federal Institutions in the province but whon won’t discuss it.

      Another funny thing about Jack is this cap on credit card 5% over prime. Jack ain’t bright enough to know that banks set prime. They could adjust prime to much higher over the bank rate now to achieve the same credit card profits.

      Why is Jack against the banks making so much money? Does Jack not know that for all the pension deficiencies that exist, when the banks make money and their stocks go up, pensions manager who own those are providing future pension benefits for eventual retirees?

      I have a neighbor, very amiable fellow who would love nothing more than for everyone to have a good life. He also thinks aliens are coming for him daily.

      Here’s an ad slogan for the final week “Jack knows Jack $hit”

      • George says:

        It’s a good, positive ad – something I’m betting the Liberal team had wished it had done from the beginning instead of those angry-man tutorials we were treated to.
        Not to mention that I just heard Layton said that he’s happy to work with Harper to make gov’t work.
        Ok – Layton for official opposition!

      • Riley says:

        No Jack knows how people think. They know we’re sick of millionaire bankers getting their taxes cut while we get. Our services cut. It’s not fair. Jack knows that we could increase income taxes by 2 percentage points on the 3 million people who make half of the income in Canada and eliminate child poverty in 12 seconds flat. He knows that businesses that hire people innovate and increase wealth get a tax cut and the freeloaders who bankrolled the Liberals and cons all those years don’t deserve a tax cut. If the claim is that tax cuts create jobs instead pad the pockets of do-nothing CEOs then it’s time to reward the companies that contribute instead of hoard. Besides, if they can’t look after their employees by managing a pension plan maybe it’s time we improved the CPP so it provides a real retirement. Paid for through general revenues creamed off of the freeloaders at the top of the food chain. Don’t listen to Harper. He’s a fend for yourself phony.

  20. The other George says:

    Last time I looked, I was still getting paid in Canadian dollars.

    When I start seeing my paycheques and bills in shekels, then perhaps I could start caring about what Peter Kent did or did not say about Israel.

    Meanwhile, what Peter has to say about Canada is eminently more important to me.

  21. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Latest Environics poll basically a dead match with Nanos on national and Ontario numbers. CPC at 39% with Dippers at 25%, leading Libs at 22%, and in Ontario, CPC at 43% with Libs at 29%, and Dips at 18%.

    Occurs to me that NDP, for the most part, aren’t doing particularly well in provinces that have experienced their governance.

    Line I heard recently: What do Layton and Duceppe have in common? They both expect someone else to pick up the tab.

  22. Mulletaur says:

    Iggy should stay, if only to save us from Rae.

  23. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, pens an informative column all about Layton. Can we say, “Yikes!”

    • JStanton says:

      Oh please… it’s hardly “informative”. An old, well-fed white guy who scribbles his antediluvian opinions about how the economy needs to support other old, well-fed white guys at the expense of everyone else, does a drive-by smear. Big deal. But spite and bile is all he has.

      Mr. Layton instead spends his career looking for solutions to enrich the lives of ordinary people. I think it’s clear about who has more credibility.


      • Riley says:

        Agreed. Corcoran is just so laughably predictable and full of Ayn Randian crack the only paper that’ll hire him is the walking dead national post. The more he says the less you need to listen. Were going to tax his over-fed white guy a$$ into the ground and build a better Canada doing it. Getting paid a big salary to pen completely discredited Vienna/Chicago school rubbish is patently unfair.

    • Riley says:

      Except Jack speaks French like the English Quebecker that he is. Ignatieff speaks it like the Parisian he wants to be and Harper like the wanna-be Kansas republican that he is. People like Jack because thinks like most Canadians instead of the elites running the hoer parties and writing he columns nobody reads.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *