Warning: strpos() [function.strpos]: needle is not a string or an integer in /nfs/c05/h04/mnt/72829/domains/warrenkinsella.com/html/oldsite/index.php on line 41

Warning: strpos() [function.strpos]: needle is not a string or an integer in /nfs/c05/h04/mnt/72829/domains/warrenkinsella.com/html/oldsite/index.php on line 48

Warning: strpos() [function.strpos]: needle is not a string or an integer in /nfs/c05/h04/mnt/72829/domains/warrenkinsella.com/html/oldsite/index.php on line 61

"...[Kinsella is] a modern-day Machiavelli, the mastermind who ran war rooms for Jean Chretien and Dalton McGuinty... He's the ultimate political insider... [The War Room] has plenty of fascinating insights and is a must-read for political junkies."

- The Toronto Sun

"The top Canadian spin doctor...tells all!"

- The National Post

"Warren Kinsella’s new book is a must-read for anyone interested in political campaigning in Canada. And not just political campaigning.…I wish I’d had the chance to read The War Room before I became Stephen Harper’s campaign manager; it might have saved me from many mistakes and months of painful learning on the job."

- Tom Flanagan, The Literary Review of Canada

"The War Room is a rich, detailed, and substantive primer on how to run a winning war room - warts, pizza boxes, smelly couches and all - from a master war roomer."

- The Hill Times

"Kinsella has crafted a handy little guide for politicos and non-politicos alike. Just keep it away from the kids."

- The Winnipeg Free Press

"... a great read ... full of fascinating stories..."

- John Moore, CFRB

"...I don't want to say [he's a] genius...but there's valuable insights here..."

- John Oakley, AM640

"I just got one copy, but I plan to get more!"

- John Wright, Ipsos, CFRB

"I do recommend [The War Room] to everyone."

- Charles Adler, Adler Online

"He's Canada's James Carville...a must-read...If you really want to win, you need this book!"

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

"A fascinating book...full of great stories."

- Ken Rockburn, CPAC


I am told that Liberal MP Keith Martin was just scrummed about his plan to gut the Canadian Human Rights Act. He told reporters he knew exactly what he was doing, and what the implications were.

So there you go, Messrs. Dion, Ignatieff and Rae: it wasn't a mistake. It is deliberate.

Now, what do you plan to do about it?

Hello? Anyone home?

[ view entry ]permalink

My friend Dan Cook at the Globe gets it, per usual. Glen at the Citizen, too.
Questions abound.

When did the lobbying start, and when did registrations take place?

Who has been lobbied, and when? Where?

Does this lobbying violate the no-communications rule?

The questions lie all over the place, like thousand-dollar bills that have spilled out of grimy envelopes. (Awkward analogy, but apt.)

[ view entry ]permalink

Dear Liberal Party:

The party that constitutionalized human rights 1982, and passed the Human Rights Act in 1977...now permitting one of its Members of Parliament to dismantle the latter. (Or saying nothing, as he attempts to do so all on his own.)

Check out M-446, dear Liberal Party, which was slipped on the Notice Paper yesterday.

What say you, Messrs. Dion, Ignatieff, Rae et al.? Do you agree with this stunt? Not surprisngly, the Nazis do. (Strong Warning: racist and anti-Semitic content therein.)

Most of us agree the Levant and Steyn complaints are specious, and therefore the best thing to happen to the far right in ages. But is Keith Martin's proposal the appropriate response? Take our word for it: it isn't.

Yours sincerely,


[ view entry ]permalink

"Dear gang:

It's apparently not new, but here's yet another reason why I don't think you should waste any more precious minutes of your lives watching American Idol. Sincerely, Me.

P.S. And TV broadcasters wonder why they are held in low repute? No mystery to the rest of us."

[ view entry ]permalink

A news report is found here.

And a note I received from one of those in attendance, surname deleted at her request:


Name: Denise XXXXX
Subject: PM Chretien


On Thursday, January 31, 2008, 08:33 AM, Denise wrote:

I drove to Antigonish in a storm last night to see him...Unbelievable. Engaging, thoughful, on his game, hilarious, crowd LOVED him!

[ view entry ]permalink

I just can't see Henry making this offer to any of the Coulter wannabes up here in the Great (they hope) White North. Why?

Don't ask.

(Warning! Henry, formerly of Black Flag, uses some salty language, and loads of irony, too! We're certain the PC-fighting Wicked Witches of the East and West, and their posse of Winged Monkeys, won't mind, however...)
[ view entry ]permalink

They bray and screech about Liberal MP Robert Thibault (and well they should, as Thibeault was dumb to meet with Karlheinz Schreiber in an Ottawa eatery a few days ago). And then they go and try and secretly meet with some key players themselves, and figure no one is going to find out.

Check out the bolded sections. A strategic plan devised by anonymous idiot savants, but without the savants part.


Ethics committee chair rebuffs Mulroney complaints over Airbus study mandate (Mulroney-Schreiber-Co)
Source: The Canadian Press
Jan 30, 2008 17:04

By Bruce Cheadle

OTTAWA - It is ``absolutely'' relevant for MPs on a parliamentary ethics committee to investigate tales of cash transactions at 24 Sussex Drive when Brian Mulroney was prime minister, the committee chairman said Wednesday.

Mulroney's lawyer has launched a furious campaign to back off investigating MPs, who are conducting a study of the former Tory prime minister's business relationship with German-Canadian arms lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber.

Mulroney argues the committee is supposed to be investigating his 1997 legal settlement with the Canadian government over a leaked criminal investigation into possible kickbacks in the purchase of Airbus aircraft.

But the first witness MPs will hear next week is Norman Spector, Mulroney's former chief of staff, who has publicly promised to produce documents setting out the source of the mysterious cash transfers linked to Mulroney's former official residence in Ottawa.

``It's relevant to our study, we are absolutely sure of that,'' committee chairman Paul Szabo said Wednesday, arguing the MPs are examining codes of conduct and conflict of interest. ``It's the reason why we're doing this study.''

Mulroney's team is now threatening to boycott the remaining hearings, saying the committee is failing to meet the ``most basic requirements of fairness.''

And in a new criticism Wednesday, the former prime minister's camp launched a rocket at Liberal committee member Robert Thibault.

Thibault has acknowledged having dinner recently with Schreiber, at the former lobbyist's invitation, to discuss the committee's work.

``It is incongruous that a member of a committee responsible for defining ethical standards should appear to be acting in a way that suggests bias and partiality,'' said a posting on Mulroney's website Wednesday.
It concluded by asking for equal time with Thibault, something the MP said he's happy to grant.

Szabo was reluctant to wade in on the matter, but acknowledged ``you can see how the perception can be spun pretty well either way.''

Others on the committee were less charitable.

Conservative Dean Del Mastro accused Thibault of ``incredibly poor judgment.''

``Mr. Schreiber is a material witness to a serious study ..., one that he pushed for. It's absolutely outrageous.''

New Democrat Pat Martin said he's been bombarded with phone messages from Schreiber seeking a meeting, and hasn't returned a single one.

``I'm also turning down invitations to meet with Robin Sears and Mulroney's people, who are hounding us aggressively wanting to lobby us behind the scenes,'' said the MP.

Both Mulroney and Schreiber testified before Christmas at the committee, and will do so again when the witness list wraps up in the last week of February.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said a limited public inquiry will commence only after the committee work is complete.

[ view entry ]permalink

...and Conservative bloggers wondered why I warned them to stop defending the Gomery Pyle Commission. Wonder no more.

Your fifteen minutes are over, "commissioner." Beat it.


Gomery slams Harper for ignoring sponsorship reform proposals
Source: The Canadian Press
Jan 30, 2008 16:37

OTTAWA - The man who headed the sponsorship inquiry has some tough words for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Two years after handing in his report on the sponsorship scandal, John Gomery is accusing the Conservative government of ignoring his key recommendations for reform.

Gomery says Harper seems to have abandoned any commitment to transparent government, in favour of a top-down style that centralizes power in the prime minister's office.

He says most of the political and bureaucratic changes he proposed fell into a ``black hole'' of indifference or were rejected out of hand.

Ironically, it was Gomery's scathing indictment of the previous Liberal government that was credited with paving the road to power for the Tories.

Conservatives counter that Harper introduced the Federal Accountability Act, which includes reforms to party financing, lobbying, protection of whistleblowers and other issues.

[ view entry ]permalink

• I am with Dr. King on the Afro-centric school vote. Like the great man said: "Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice." This no great step forward. It is a step backward, and it is what organized racists have sought for decades.
• My goodness, two letters in a week. Do you get the feeling that Brian Mulroney is a tad nervous about what his former Chief of Staff, Norman Spector, is going to say? Mr. Spector doesn't sound nervous at all.
I loved that line: "At no time was safety compromised." Of course not! Heck, I flew to and from Ottawa on Monday, and the pilot was taken out with a tranquilizer gun, because he had been feeling a bit distressed after a lengthy discussion with God! But we barely noticed!
She's right, of course: it's a trap. And, personally, I tend to hate it when politicians use war - that is, those conflicts wherein our young men and women are getting killed - as a political "traps" for each other. It's disgusting, frankly.
• I should have highlighted this passage from Ezra Levant's October 2004 column. You know, the part where he writes: "Why hasn't Kathrada been charged with a hate crime? Why haven't he and his mosque been charged under Canada's new anti-terrorism laws for promoting and aiding terrorist groups like Hamas?" There you go, winged monkeys and free speechers: forget about those puny human rights tribunals! Ezra wants people he doesn't like (and understandably so) charged with crimes for saying what they think! Ezra, welcome to the Censor Club!
[ view entry ]permalink

...and, BTW, I am still irritated I reportedly did not make the annual wankers list. I demand a recount!

[ view entry ]permalink

And, in this one, Mr. Murphy has sliced and diced Ezra "Free Speech, But Not Necessarily Speech That Is Free For Everyone Else" Levant, but good. Ouch. I do not feel the need to add a single word about Ezra Levant's bald-faced hypocrisy. Big City Lib, take it away:


Ezra Levant: That Was Then, This Is Now
From his 2004 Calgary Sun Article, "Preacher of death, Hatemongering Muslims must be prosecuted "

" Not charging the handful of Muslims who are haters is like not charging the handful of Italians who are part of the Mafia -- it is a misguided act of political correctness. The majority of Muslims -- we hope -- do not support [Younus] Kathrada. He should be made an example of, not have excuses made for him. Justice calls for it."

Islamofascists should be charged with hate speech, but Nazis shouldn't? I must have missed some nuance in Ezra's reasoning.

h/t to the poppinjays.

PS. But, someone might argue, you are attacking the man for his hypocrisy rather than his arguments for soundness. Perhaps, but it is part of MY argument that, since when you scratch a free-speech absolutist like Ezra you invariably find a secret censor, there is simply no point in pretending that free speech absolutism is a viable position. Once you realize that, it becomes possible to move on to a real debate about where the limits of speech should be located.

[ view entry ]permalink

Some of you will send me your impressions of this, which I always welcome. My impressions:

• I look super tired because Bowie and Powers had me out late the night before for, um, important policy discussions. I blame them.
• My tie is loosened, a la Gerard Kennedy, because I walked on the set and saw that Rockburn wasn't wearing a tie at all. Like I always say: when in Rome, dress as they do in their television shows.
• When Ken said "Rosacrucean moment," I totally pretended to know what he was talking about. I didn't. I still don't.
• In a super they put up, CPAC got Daisy's client list partly wrong. I have represented Glaxo and Merrill Lynch in the past. I don't now.

Anyway, the video is found here.
Happy viewing.

[ view entry ]permalink

Then again, it is all a little weird, still. May as well put the streamers and champagne away, honey. (For now.)

[ view entry ]permalink

So there I was, sitting in the Speaker's Gallery, minding my own business, watching Question Period's conclusion, when they do the applause for guests stuff. A minister from B.C. gets some applause. Then Chuck Strahl and Monte Solberg stand up and say that I deserve a standing ovation, too.

I don't recall Ralph Goodale joining in on that one. Odd, that.

[ view entry ]permalink

The Rick Mercer thing, below, was a joke. A joke. He didn't ask me to go on his show, for the love of Pete.

Christ, Ottawa is cold.

[ view entry ]permalink

<<First <Back | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | Next> Last>>