…and he’s still a gutless, misleading, waffler:

“There’s nothing wrong with being pro-choice or pro-life, both are honourable positions. What is wrong is a potential premier dodging the issue. That’s gutless and misleading to voters. Hudak hasn’t gone all the way to making his position clear…The PC leader should state his position, get the discussion over, or abortion will come back to bite him on the butt. Premier Dalton McGuinty has been forthright in saying he is pro-choice. Hudak should be just as clear about his position.

While in Ottawa, Hudak said he wants to put ankle bracelets not just on sexual offenders but dangerous criminals as well. All this will cost $50 million at a time when crime rates are plummeting.

Stop spending our tax money on unnecessary measures.

Hudak’s campaign slogan should be “Tough on crime, tough on logic, tough on your wallet, easy on votes.”

 

Comments (43)

Talk about burying the lede:

“In Ottawa to announce a new anti-crime initiative, Hudak clarified comments he made Monday on an abortion pledge he “may have” signed. He told reporters he did sign the pledge, but stressed the issue would not become part of the government agenda if he wins the Oct. 6 election.

“It was a petition that came from my church in my riding back in 1998 that I brought forward as an individual member,” Hudak said.”

This is actually news. The PC’s leader has been repeatedly saying only that he “may have” pledged defund abortion. Oh, but only as a private citizen, don’t you know.

Well, he isn’t a private citizen. He’s someone who has a shot at becoming the most powerful lawmaker in the province. So, when he says he’ll stop funding abortion, it now means something.

Not “may have” meant something.

Comments (1)

I was on my pal Jim Richards’ show on Newstalk 1010 earlier today.  It was a lot of fun, as always.  At one point, I told Jim that Tim Hudak’s slithery, slippery performance on HST (“stop it in its tracks,” now for it), FDK (a “shiny toy,” now for it), human rights tribunals (scrap them, now for ’em), health taxes (kill them, now hug them), and now abortion (“defund,” now “nothing to see here, move along,”etc.) reminds me of something.  A living thing. “What is it?” said Jim.

So I said it.

Below, a visual rendering, sent along by an appreciative listener who wishes to remain anonymous.  It’s rather accurate, wouldn’t you say?  Also, cute.

The one on the left, that is.

 

Comments (16)

Voters deserve clarity from Hudak, party leaders on abortion: McGuinty (Hudak-Abortion)
Source: The Canadian Press
Jul 19, 2011 14:56

---

OAKVILLE, Ont. – Premier Dalton McGuinty is urging Opposition Leader Tim Hudak to come clean about his stance on abortion.

In Oakville today, the Liberal premier said voters are looking for clarity on the important issue ahead of the fall election.

McGuinty says he supports a woman’s right to choose and all party leaders owe it to voters to be clear about their position on the issue.

Hudak appears to be shying away from his previous anti-abortion stance, saying he doesn’t plan to re-open the issue if he wins the Oct. 6 vote.

But he has refused to say if he still opposes abortion, walking away from the microphone Monday when reporters asked repeatedly if he still considered himself pro-life.

 

Comments (18)

My God, I love this tune.  Also: most violent vid you’ll see, um, today.

Comments (0)

Almeida said: McGuinty “supports a woman’s right to choose. … The McGuinty government has always held this position and will continue to stand up for Ontario women’s right to choose.”

Hudak at a news conference said that on abortion, “We are not reopening this debate.”

In 2009, Hudak said he couldn’t support abortion and had signed petitions against funding abortion.

Yet at a news conference this week despite knowing questions on this topic were bound to be asked, Hudak said he “may” have signed a petition.

Odd that Hudak can address the pressing issue of promoting the sale of buck-a-beer, but not abortion. Oh, it’s about votes you say? Well, that explains it. Election is coming on Oct. 6.

Just who has guts on this issue and who doesn’t?

 

Comments (7)

• “At a minimum we should expect our…government to discourage abortion as a choice, promote adoption and lead a debate on what abortion limits society might consider reasonable.” (July 6, 2008)
• “On average, about 110,000 Canadian babies are aborted every year. That’s about half the number we take in through immigration.  If we need more Canadian workers, what better place to find them than from among these unwanted Canadian children?” (February 18, 2003)
• “If we can reduce the number [of abortions], we’d all benefit.” (February 18, 2003)
• “Canadian women have been able to end the lives of their unborn children simply for reasons of convenience and with no greater social approbation than one would face for cancelling an inconvenient dinner reservation.” (December 1, 1996)
• “The people deciding to have these abortions aren’t young teens.  Ontly one in five is under 20….Most are people who ought to be old enough to know better, but society is winking and telling them what they’re doing is all right, just an expression of women’s rights.” (December 1, 1996)
• “The notion that having more women running things will somehow make the world a better place is heartwarming but naïve…” (March 14, 1993)
• “Society is hyper-sensitive to gender issues to the point where an inappropriate comment or pat can turn a man into a pariah” (November 26, 1997)

Comments (22)

The media is a special interest group

Politicians and Joe and Jane Frontporch know this already, but it amazes me how often some media bigwigs still don’t. The media, to most of us, are simply big companies owned by other big companies. Like all big companies, they have biases aplenty.

So, when I penned a media column for the National Post, I was told I was not permitted to write anything positive about the CBC or the Toronto Star. If I even quoted someone saying something remotely positive, it would end up on the Post’s newsroom floor.

(At the Sun, in case you are wondering, I have never been, (a) told what to write, or, (b) censored in any way —despite the fact that, as the resident Bolshevik, I periodically drive Brian Lilley, Mark Bonokoski and John Snobelen bonkers. Which upsets me a great deal, as you can imagine).

Comments (6)

Ontario Hansard October 1, 1997

Mr. Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I’m pleased to bring forward a petition from about 100 people from the United Brethren in Christ Church in Fort Erie on Garrison Road. It reads as follows:

“Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and
“Whereas the federal government has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;
“We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to continue to urge the government of Canada to enact legislation to ban going topless in public places.”

I have signed my signature to it in agreement.

Fortunately, we can count on Tim Hudak to put an end to this kind of lawless Satanism.

Comments (12)

…there’ll be more, too:

On the other side of the coin, what about the costs of the program and the risks? Hudak says it will cost $20 million a year. Critics suspect that’s low, possibly seriously low, when considering the cost of transporting and supervising nearly 3,000 provincial inmates, assuming all take part in the chain-gang program. What about risk and liability? Of that inmate population, estimates are that about 1,000 inmates are in jail for violent offences, ranging from sex crimes to accessory to murder. So, about one third of the people taking part in chain gangs would be violent offenders. In American jurisdictions, there have been at least 10 escapes from prison work crews — just in the past two months. That public safety risk is causing some states to revisit the use of chain gangs. Knowing these things, are you ready to have chain gangs working in your neighbourhood?

Comments (0)