09.10.2015 08:29 AM

KCCCC Day 39: Election 42 – nuttier than squirrel poop

  

  • Nuttier than a fruit cake. Nuttier than a Tim’s Maple Log. Nuttier than a port-a-potty at a peanut festival. Nuttier than a Trump-Palin ticket. NUTTY. 
  • That’s how nutty this election is. Every party has had a crazy things being said by crazy candidates or crazy staffers. That’s happened in the past. But the number of bimbo eruptions in his one? I’ve never seen anything like it. 
  • It isn’t the fault of social media. Social media simply provides a platform for crazy people to say crazy things – and for campaign war rooms, or the media, to thereafter publicize the craziness.
  • It’s been nutty in past campaigns, as noted. But the sheer volume of insanity and inanity in this year’s model simply dwarfs everything that has gone before it, I think.
  • Check this out. This summary doesn’t even capture them all! Just this morning, a Liberal candidate in Surrey (reminding us all the nuts roll to the corners) said:

  

  • What is going on? All of the parties have so-called “green light” committees – believe me, I know (one was used to actually “green light” the likes of Eve Adams – and torpedo actual Liberal leadership candidates like David Bertschi and Deborah Coyne). So, how did all of those green lighting geniuses miss this stuff?
  • Your guess is as good as mine. But I’ll tell you one thing – if the parties are wondering why none of them can break through, maybe the serial idiocy that is Election 2015 is a big part of it. Like I say, it’s nutty. 

51 Comments

  1. Matt says:

    The comments made by the NDP Director of Communication – Telling the Pope to go fuck himself were shocking to me. Not really for the content however, but more for being made by someone who is the Director of Communications for a political party.

    Now I grant you he wasn’t in that position when the comments were posted to twitter some years ago, but you’d think with being in that position now he would have been smart enough to search through his twitter and remove those kinds of things.

    • JH says:

      You have to ask, would any party but the NDP get such a free pass from the Media, if such comments were made by one of their representatives in the past or present. I’m willing to bet Trudeau or Harper would be asked about it day after day on the campaign trail.
      The media in this election are as big a joke as the politicians, they have nothing to feel superior about.
      And WK, everytime I see one of these Liberal bozo eruptions, I’m reminded that they wouldn’t green light you as a candidate.

    • Mitch says:

      I find it truly amazing that the bad guy in this story is supposed to be the one who is AGAINST the discrimination of LGTBQ people.

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      Big, big mistake by Mulcair to just accept an apology.

      The Catholic hierarchy No. 1 enemy still remains Trudeau, for his fullout attack at Liberals who were not pro-choice – the Church stood to the side in the last Ontario provincial election and has been mum about Ontario’s new sex education curriculum so there would be no casualties or spent resources before their attack on Trudeau.

      Mulcair’s lackadaisical acceptance of apology by a grown up is going to force many Catholics to grudgingly vote for the CONS or not vote at all.

      And yes, there are many Canadians who consider abortion and/or sex selection wrong.

  2. Hawaii Five Oh says:

    complete media silence on Mulcairs dual citizenship
    if Harper were a dual Can/US citizen?
    would be Yoko Ono grade cattawollering

    • JonT says:

      …. and the CBC is churning it’s rhetorical propaganda pap pissing on the Harper CPC…. so obvious.

    • Nicole says:

      Prime Minister John Turner was born in the UK and never renounced his UK citizenship. That is why people aren’t making a big deal of it outside of the CPC. Besides the other country is France, not an enemy state of Canada. We should not be acting like ignorant Tea Party Americans on this issue. While you can question Mulcair’s policies and whether or not they will work, to question that he will somehow prioritize French interests over Canadian interests is ridiculous. Are we also going to question the motives of Catholics, who are supposed to adhere to the Pope?

      • Vancouverois says:

        The NDP themselves made an issue of French citizenship when Dion was the Liberal leader, so they cannot credibly downplay it now. And he, as far as I know, never had to swear an oath of allegiance to France to get it — which Mulcair did.

        In the case of John Turner (and Sir John A MacDonald, for that matter), Canada and the UK share their Head of State.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Vancouverois,

          You must really mean head of government.

          And you forgot on the French side Michaëlle Jean.

          • Scotian says:

            Ronald O’Dowd

            No, actually he is quite correct. Canada and the UK share a head of State, namely the Queen, or as we call it here the Crown. We do not share a head of government, that would be the respective Prime Ministers of each nation. So sorry, but Vancouverois is the one that is factually correct here, and you just pointed to nothing but your own ignorance on this basic factual matter, and it is a basic factual matter, it is civics 101 level stuff to be able to know the difference between a head of government and State and who is which in our system. This sort of basic ignorance on our civics is something that irks me wherever I see it, and especially when it is used to try to “correct” someone who is actually, factually correct in the matter. Given that Vancouverois and I are in very different spots on the political spectrum it pains me to have to do this, but…

            We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

          • Scott says:

            Maybe so Scotian, but there was no reason to be quite so disparaging to Ronald. It’s not like you. Maybe you were having a bad day.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            Vancouverois,

            Quite obviously, I owe you an apology. I misread your post thinking you were making a reference to the position held by Turner and Macdonald.

            Scotian,

            I know that the Queen is a multi-nation head of state. I even know that she is represented here by a Governor General. I’ve been called many things but this is a first for ignorant.

            Scott,

            Thank you.

          • Vancouverois says:

            Nope, I was referring to HM the Queen, who is indeed Head of State for both countries.

            Thanks for the apology – no harm done.

    • Ted H says:

      It’s obvious what you are getting at Al, but it has nothing to do with Harper, there is no credit he can claim and FP is hardly politically objective. Nice try though.

    • Vancouverois says:

      Is it?

      I can see at least one significant difference: when Ms MacDonnell’s comments were unearthed, she was turfed. Ms Davies, however, is still the Liberal candidate as of this writing. And Shawn Dearn is still NDP Communications Director.

    • ottawacon says:

      Hardly – all it takes to become a ‘director’ of an EDA is showing up the meeting twice, and that one was a new EDA to boot. Candidates are subject to a nomination campaign, a screening questionnaire, and a due diligence evaluation, all of which has become enormously centralized in every party. A flaky volunteer is just that, a candidate is someone who has accepted the endorsement of the party. In the Conservatives’ case, Byrne is wearing the failure because she was the gatekeeper.

  3. Tired of it All says:

    There was a play in Ottawa during early summer called the Public Servant. Met with rave reviews. Money line, coming from the matron (a Deputy Minister) to the newbie about the difference now in politics and with politicians: “It was different when I was young. They were smarter!” ?

  4. doconnor says:

    More people are using social media then four years ago, so there are more chances of their ideas being recorded.

    It could be the candidates are not mentioning old comments and the party doesn’t have time to dig through thousands of comment to find them, while people who have been followors the candidates would remember and expose them.

  5. cgh says:

    Doc is right, but it’s more than that. All politics, not just Canadian, has been full of fruit loops. Even a cursory look through past politicians’ bios through the ages will show this. The difference is that social media allows it all to spread far and wide instantly, whereas in former times things were either hushed up or simply ignored as either eccentricities or things just not mentioned in ‘polite society’.

  6. Christian Giles says:

    It’s only going to increase/get worse as time goes on. With all today’s kids who will be tomorrow’s politicall candidates posting all sorts of stuff, pics, etc. We ain’t seen nothing yet. It may get so bad that it no longer makes headlines.

  7. Lance says:

    Not properly vetting candidates is one thing that is bad enough that every party is dealing with this election, but which particular party’s leader(s) won’t have it and gets rid of them?

  8. Matt says:

    The Leaders aren’t exempt from bozo eruptions:

    Case in point, Justin Trudeau yesterday:

    http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/09/09/trudeau-takes-it-on-the-chin-over-small-business-taxes

    “A large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes and we want to reward the people who are actually creating jobs and contributing in concrete ways.”

    His attempt at clarifying that statement didn’t help.

  9. JonT says:

    Mulcair the ex-Liberal and now leader of the NDP and Trudeau the champagne socialist leader of the Liberals…. that’s what is ‘nutty’.

    The democratically driven lemming masses cannot be wrong… according to the scientific polls. The fat lady is humming her tune according to the poll results.

  10. davie says:

    I guess you have to be a Duke to get away with saying: Publish and be damned.

  11. Brad says:

    The common denominator is that these nuts have never held a real job, or not for very long.

    Whether you work in and office, factory, service industry or construction, you learn at an early age to keep your racial, sexual and drug usage opinions to yourself.

    These people could never hold a regular 9-5 job and they want to govern a country. It’s depressing.

  12. Matt says:

    Hmmmmm.

    Not related to this topic but still VERY interesting:

    Harper sends Campaign Chair Jenni Byrne back to Ottawa.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-jenni-byrne-campaign-1.3221860

    One of Stephen Harper’s closest advisers is being sent back to Ottawa after a series of missteps knocked the Conservative leader’s re-election bid off message, CBC News has learned.

    Conservative campaign manager Jenni Byrne, who has been travelling with Harper, is returning to Ottawa.

    Sources tell CBC News she is bearing the brunt of Harper’s anger over this week’s decision to boot two candidates who made it through the party’s screening process, which she was supposed to oversee.

    • Matt says:

      The question to you Warren:

      Does this make Harper look desperate or look like he’s finally got his head in the game?

    • doconnor says:

      This may already be having an effect. Harper boldly admitted to doing things over the past year to somewhat help Syrian refugees come to Canada.

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      Typical arrogance of leaders:

      Someone else makes a mistake (Byrne) and the leader (Harper) goes ballistic.

      The leader (Harper) makes many mistakes, everyone has to ignore and/or defend and/or lie to make up for it.

      • Matt says:

        But if she’s responsible for vetting the candidates and these people are getting through the process without this stuff being found, she should be the one held accountable.

        Quite frankly the people responsible for vetting the candidates from ALL the parties should be dumped.

    • Matt says:

      Report:

      Lynton Crosby, the individual credited with David Cameron’s sweeping majority in the UK has been brought in by the Conservatives.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        Matt,

        Waste of time and money when himself knows less than zip about Canada –not to mention Canadian politics. Too funny. (Surprised Harper didn’t call Howard or Abbott. LOL.)

        • Matt says:

          Crosby actually knows a great deal about Canadian politics. Among other things, he urged the UK Tories to adopt the Harper governments immigrant outreach that Jason Kenney did so well.

          I’d venture he knows more about Canadian politics than the Obama guys giving advice to the Libs and NDP.

  13. Christian says:

    This bozo eruption tops the list!

    http://www.pressprogress.ca/conservative_candidate_shares_advice_on_drunk_women_latent_homosexuals_and_being_a_man

    And he apparently did all this AFTER becoming the candidate!

  14. Matt says:

    6:20pm, the marijuana lady has resigned.

    Trudeau was asked about the comments this morning “Her comments do not reflect the opinion of the Liberal party or my personal opinion.”

    Soooooo, why wait 8 hours for her to resign? Why didn’t you can her then and there?

    • Vancouverois says:

      To be fair, I think it’s entirely appropriate for Trudeau (or any leader) to take some time to get to the bottom of the story, interview the candidate for himself, and discuss it with advisors before making that decision. As long as the right thing is done before too much time has passed, I’m satisfied.

  15. Jon Adams says:

    And as if to rub it in on how rotten the current slate of candidates is…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/04/jean-chretien-water-ski-video_n_7934126.html

  16. Ray says:

    I’m afraid Mr. Crosby’s arrival is too little, too late. Mr. Harper’s heart simply isn’t in this campaign.

  17. Aurelia says:

    http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(11)00522-1/abstract

    I know no one wants to believe what the candidate in Surrey BC said, but she was quoting evidence based medicine.

    http://www.motherisk.org/women/commonDetail.jsp?content_id=945

    Marijuana has been used by some women with severe nausea and vomiting. The smoking is bad, but not hash.

    The single most dangerous drug that can be used by any Canadian, pregnant or not is alcohol. It’s perfectly legal. But deadly. 100% of alcohol goes through a placenta.

    And lots of other drugs don’t go through the placenta, and after birth, many drugs in small amounts aren’t that dangerous. Any that are bad for kids at any ages are problematic because their parents are too drugged up to work, get housing, eat well or avoid injuries, accidents.

    Number one reason a pregnant or nursing mother lives in a grow-op? They are poor, and get to live for free, in nice neighbourhoods. Number one reason pregnant or nursing mothers use alcohol and illegal drugs? To self-medicate for depression, mental health, chronic pain. They have to self-medicate because as soon as they get pregnant, doctors refuse to keep renewing their (proven safe) psych meds. So instead of taking an SSRI, they do whatever they have too.

    I could go on through each thing she said. The issue is that she was quoting evidence based medicine. Science. Not just making it up. And not one person in the media or online, even tried to look.

    • Warren says:

      And she was right to accuse the Canadian Cancer Society of being part of a conspiracy too?

      • Aurelia says:

        http://www.moneysense.ca/planning/2015-charity-100-grades/

        Scroll down to the Canadian Cancer Society’s grading. They get Ds for cost of fundraising (49% cost???) and only 53% of the money raised actually goes to patients and or researchers. A lot goes to salaries, and buildings and whatever. That’s empire building, and not a good use of taxpayer funds.

        Go back through their analysis and their past 5 years of ratings. Quite an eye opener. Then talk to some patients who have to raise money on indiegogo to cover the cost of new drugs like biologicals to save their lives. (MEK inhibitors-tailored to genes) They work. Cancer Society sure as heck isn’t paying for it. Neither will Health Canada, because it still wants studies. and more studies. and has no staff to look over any of this. And Big Pharma will not give freebies to dying patients who need it, fearing that if they only get 3-4 years out of it and not a cure, they drug’s reputation will be tarnished. So patients die in 6 months instead.

        Large Charities become too large, too complicated, too bureaucratic. conspiracy? mmmmm, don’t know that it fits the legal definition. But so utterly incompetent that it causes serious suffering to Canadians? yes

        As for dignity, well yes, it would be good if patients could get free, high quality pot to deal with nausea and vomiting and diahrrea and anxiety. It would be even better if they could get properly dosed pain control in palliative and hospice care. The new regulations designed to stop addicts with backaches have truly screwed the seriously ill and dying.
        Meanwhile Health Canada barely allows testing and trials on marijuana. And the MS Society and Cancer Society won’t fund them, so we have to thank god for the Bronfman family who have funded studies.

        Lastly, have you ever heard of a book called Pink Ribbon Blues? http://pinkribbonblues.org/ glance at the website. Large cancer orgs like Susan G. Komen’s et al are pretty much hated for what they have done….or not done.

  18. Scotian says:

    Since I cannot reply directly, here is my reply:

    Scott says:
    September 11, 2015 at 7:53 am

    “Maybe so Scotian, but there was no reason to be quite so disparaging to Ronald. It’s not like you. Maybe you were having a bad day.”

    Forgive me, but I think I know what is and isn’t “like me”, AND I do think there was cause for such disparagement given the offence, and if the person had been Vancouverois himself or say Al fromCranbrook instead of Ron, I have to wonder whether you would have been so quick to react this way. What is “like me” is an adherence to facts first, before partisanship, before all else ESPECIALLY when it comes to basic civics, something I have made clear in many cases against CPCers and others here for example. I also went as hard as I did because his entire reply to Vancouverois was to tell him he was factually wrong. Well, if you are going to play the role of schoolmaster, you have to have your facts right, otherwise you open yourself up to the sharp correction I offered. Just because normally Ron and I are on the same side does not excuse him from that final sentence I used, namely we are entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. Remember, the entire basis of Ron’s comment was to upbraid Vancouverois for being obviously wrong in what he said, so given just how basic the actual factual reality was that called for especial noting, so I gave him the same I would anyone else making that basic a mistake AND claiming they were right and the person they are “correcting” was wrong.

    My loyalty is to reality first, and when someone does what Ron did, well they get the same treatment from me whether I usually agree with them or whether I find them in utter opposition to my POV. It is called being consistent in applying a standard. Which I might add is also “like me”.

    Ron:

    If you know this so well, then you should have never made that comment in the first place, and when you checked it before printing it you should have caught your error then. So based on your action you looked ignorant of a fundamental precept/fact of while calling out someone for being ignorant of that same fundamental precept/fact on basic civics. That gets from me the same treatment whether you are on the right, left, center or wherever on the political spectrum. I take basic civics VERY seriously, as you and others here should well know, and when you place yourself so exposed, well, you get the same as anyone else, it is called applying a consistent standard based on actions and not who does it. I realize this may be something of an old fashioned attitude in the modern world, but it is also a part of who I am and I will not apologize for it.

    It would have been one thing if that error had been a part of a wider comment, but it wasn’t was it? You made a specific point of calling out Vancouverois for his apparent ignorance of basic civics when you replied to him, yet you are all offended when it happens to you because you were in the wrong all along? What would you call that?

    Anyway, the point has been made, and this is as far as I am taking it.

Leave a Reply

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


*