In today’s Sun: Remembering Keith Davey

Aug. 4, 1984. That was the first time I can recall seeing Sen. Keith Davey up close. It was one of those hot, humid Ottawa Valley afternoons and, among other things, the Liberal Party of Canada was in a freefall, the campaign manager had quit, and things were rapidly going from bad to worse.

We – the majority government, the natural governing party – were going down the toilet. So Davey, ever the Grit optimist, agreed to step up. To try to save the unsaveable.

I, and a few dozen other Liberal national campaign staff, had gathered in a boardroom in our national headquarters in downtown Ottawa. We huddled there among the heat and the fax machines (such was modern campaign technology in 1984) and we waited.

Davey bounded into the room, well-attired, well-groomed and exuding energy. “I am a Liberal!” he said to us. “I was a Pierre Trudeau Liberal and now I’m a John Turner Liberal! And we are going to win this thing!”


The Emb Timbes

[It’s snowing as the youngest and the eldest and I step outside.]

Me: Wow! Look at all the snow!

Youngest: It’s the abobalybse, Daddy!

Me: It’s the what?

Youngest: The abobalybse!

Eldest: [Peals of laughter.]

Me: Buddy, it’s called the apocalypse.

Youngest: I can’t say abobalybse.

Eldest: [More laughter.]

Me: I think abobalybse is way better, anyway.


When I post this one, you know I mean it (updated)

About this.

Five points.

One, everyone knows CATSA suck.

Two, CATSA in Ottawa particularly suck. They’re jerks.

Three, I have read that story from top to bottom three times. I didn’t see the news.

Four, the story has the faintest odour of one newspaper chain going after people at another newspaper chain. I’ve experienced it personally, recently. And with the same paper.

Five, yes, this is Warren speaking.

UPDATE: Ninety minutes after this post went up, a Citizen writer sent me an email saying how what what I’d written was, quote unquote, “deeply resented.”  He then – out of the blue – went on to tell me a great deal about the pleadings in my divorce action, and about things that have happened, therein, which have never been made public.  He then concludes his missive by noting that – so far – his newspaper hasn’t published anything about my personal life.  He could have added the word “yet,” but he didn’t need to.  The message was clear.

Boy oh boy: I put up a tiny post questioning the media/bureaucratic treatment of a man who has been no fan of mine (to say the least), and the media organization in question sends me a note containing a not-so-subtle threat.  Wow.

I’m still processing all of this, but one thing’s for sure: I’m not someone who takes to intimidation very well.  You’d think some folks would know that by now, but apparently they don’t.

Stay tuned.

UPDATED: And the rave reviews about the Shitizen’s reportage keep pouring in, here and here.


Spot on

I am just back from Sen. Davey’s funeral – also attended by hundreds of political giants, from David Peterson to David Dingwall to John Laschinger to Jerry Grafstein – and I can now finally post the Liberal ads.

I’m biased, because I am always a big fan of my friend Bob Richardson’s stuff.  But here’s why I think they work:

  • They’re factual
  • They aren’t ad hominem
  • They’re visual

Why are those things important?  Because the Reformatory ads contained factual errors (eg. their big false claim about the G7).  Because the Reformatory ads are all about attacking a person, instead of an idea.  And because the Grit spots have creative and compelling visuals, and TV is all about pictures.

The Conservative buy is apparently $2m, but I haven’t seen much evidence of it yet.  But, in the long run, the buy doesn’t matter as much as the content.  I run a firm called Daisy – that much I know.


Leadership

It’s been a while since I associated that word with Mr. Ignatieff.  In my view, it took some guts to say what he said, and where he said it.  Meanwhile, have Messrs. Harper or Layton said anything, anywhere?  Let the rest of us know in comments.

***

Ignatieff says kirpan is not a weapon and should be allowed in all legislatures (Kirpan-Denied-Que)
Source: The Canadian Press
Jan 20, 2011 14:26


MONTREAL
– Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says the ceremonial dagger worn by devout Sikhs should not be considered a weapon.

Ignatieff’s position puts him at odds with the Quebec legislature, which earlier this week barred entry to a group of Sikhs who were wearing their kirpans.

It also clashes with a Bloc Quebecois proposal to have the kirpan banned from the House of Commons for security reasons.

Ignatieff says the kirpan should be allowed in all legislatures in Canada.

The Conservative government has yet to take a position on the issue, other than to refer it to Parliament’s security staff.

Ignatieff was in Montreal today as part of a cross-country tour of ridings the Liberals will target in the next election.

INDEX: NATIONAL RELIGION POLITICS

© 2011 The Canadian Press


Sharp as blunt butterknives

That’s how sharp a kirpan is, as my old friend Ian Capstick pointed out on CBC last night.  And, as I have queried, why is it somehow okay for steak knives to be wielded inside the National Assembly’s cafeterias and restaurants – but if a devout Sikh attempts to enter with a puny kirpan, as thir faith requires them to do, and as is permitted in the House of Commons and the Ontario Legislature and elsewhere – the separatists want to make it a crime? It’s as bizarre as it is shameful.

The issue is attracting international attention – and, I am happy to note, my party has vociferously condemned the Bloc Quebecois and their shameless appeal to xenophobia. Others, meanwhile, are fulfilling their expected roles: Maclean’s “all Quebec is corrupt” idiot sides with the bigots, as does the media-roundup idiot at the Post. Figures.

As I told an old friend from Kingston last night, this is precisely why I favour a big wall between Church and State, and going in both directions, too (ie., politicians shouldn’t stick their noses in matters of faith, and the faithful shouldn’t impose their views on the body politic).

The separatists, it seems, favour separating more than Quebec from Canada.  They favour other kinds of separation, as well.

Jews, Muslims, devout Christians, Mennonites, et al., take note. If it can happen to one, it can happen to all, history suggests.