02.25.2011 08:50 AM

Kind of says it all

We’ve been calling Timmy Hudak The No Plan Man. Turns out it wasn’t entirely rhetorical. Check out the URL, circled at the top.

22 Comments

  1. Cath says:

    WK – how do you suppose a federal election might effect the provincial politics of all of those provinces going into their own campaigns…if one happens that is? I was speaking with a colleague the other day who believes that if a federal election is forced on provinces that it will hurt provincial campaigns.

    • Warren says:

      The reverse is true. The federal parties rely on most of the same partisans and fundraisers (and media buy slots). There will not be an election in the Fall.

      Some will therefore say the Spring is it, but I still do not see it happening. There is a lot of risk for all of the leaders going now. The status quo carries comparitively much less risk.

      • Cath says:

        that makes sense. I asked because many local ridings(all parties) are holding off on provincial nominations just in case a federal election is called. Mainly because, as you wrote they would be spread thin re: fundraising, volunteers etc. Very frustrating to see folks believing the media hype re: federal election and taking their eyes off of provincial opportunities on all fronts.

      • james curran says:

        Yes there is so Risk. I mean that’ll fuck up that whole Harper hosting the Royals thing and that whole Harper going to the Royal Wedding thingy. Of course Baird could always take Laureen.

  2. MontrealElite says:

    No, I pretty much think that’s their plan.

  3. AmandaM says:

    Lovely idea, and funny way to illustrate, but easily explained. I can’t find a link anywhere on their home page that “Plan for the Future” is the name of their platform, which is what you’re saying it is, and that’s not what it is, so clearly a page with that name wouldn’t exist either.

    It’s enough to say that they don’t have a plan. It’s obvious. Also, I’ve always wondered about using “they don’t have a plan” as a way to attract people to the cause. First of all, they have plenty of time to get one. Second, it seems like we’re saying, “they can’t come up with anything better than us, so let’s just stick with the status quo”. It feels like we’re not using our own amazing record of achievement, and that no plan anyone could ever come up with would match the road we’ve taken the province down. I’d rather focus on Tim not being able to figure out his job as leader, let alone as potential Premier, something like, “these guys can’t get their own party together. Does this look like a government-in-waiting to you?”, followed by the impressive achievement of Premier McGuinty.

    God, I’m such an idealist. Still. After all these years.

    • Warren says:

      Someone used their web page’s search engine to look for “platform.” That’s what they got. They sent it to me.

    • Namesake says:

      Pretty, um, sophisticated reasoning in the first paragraph there, Amanda, which we’ve seen from you before;

      and you’re pretty quick to accuse WK of attempting (badly) to be misleading (even though the screenshot itself was pretty clear about the way the results were achieved: via a search in for ‘ontario pc platofrm’ {oops, typo, but probably only on WK’s & not his informant’s part} in the browser’s default search engine – likely google) .

      But let’s see. Now, although it’s true that that page itself has disappeared into the ether since the ON PC party has blocked its archives from appearing on The Wayback Machine’s servers, clearly that really was the link for their past platform, nevertheless, since:

      – a hyperlink entitled “The Conservative Party plan for Ontario’s future” with that url (http://www.ontariopc.com/planforthefuture.asp ) is still offered at the end of this 2007 CTV article on hydro http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20070609/toronto_storm_power_070609/CSI : hey, it’s like this IS a CSI procedural show or something)

      – and googling that (“The Conservative Party plan for Ontario’s future”) shows that same now dead link, as well

      – as does googling “ontario pc platform”

      But to his point:

      searching the ON PC’s internal search engine at http://www.ontariopc.com for “The Conservative Party plan for Ontario’s future” is no better; it yields: “No posts found. Try a different search?”

      And even just searching for the original, quite reasonable target — “platform” — just yields: i) a brief description of the process involved in “Ontario PCs Policy Consultation”; ii) a notice about registering for those “Regional Policy Forums” this Fall; iii) a speech while the World Cup was going on, “Remarks By Tim Hudak ? First Anniversary Celebration”; and iv) a critique of McGuinty’s last throne speech.

      In contrast, pace Kibbitson & Cath, there’s a whole large, hyperlinked section on the LPC site, at http://www.liberal.ca/issues/ and searching ITS internal engine for “platform” yields 255 results.

      • AmandaM says:

        Honestly, Namesake, will you please settle down? Your cynicism and suspiciousness against me personally are getting ridiculous. Also, I’m sure all of your reasoning is perfect all the time. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean you have to be a jerk about it. So please,

        I’m sorry I’m not as technologically sophisticated as you are. Most people don’t do these searches themselves and count on people like us to give it to them, and we should be at the ready with clarity in case of confusion. And, as you’ve seen, Warren is capable of clearing up any confusion (which, in my being a devil’s advocate and making sure what’s apparent is what is real and clear, is what he did, thank WK!) and also has very clearly stated to you that my loyalties are not to be questioned, which is again what you’ve implied.

        Wouldn’t it be better if you didn’t have to explain what you did? Do you understand human nature at all? It’s fine for people like me, and I say, “oh, ok, there was someone who sent the link and there is supposed to be something there, but isn’t…haha!”, but it’s not fine for someone who is on the fence and suspicious of everyone’s motives. If people who are on the fence get even a whiff of something amiss, it can hurt you forever. Wouldn’t it be better to avoid that in the first place?

        Furthermore, just because Warren’s search terms were “ontario pc platofrm” does not mean that’s the website he is on. For example, right now, my search terms are “global tv” from last night when my kid wanted to watch an episode of “Glee”, yet I am browsing this site. Warren and I both use Safari, so there’s that.

        • Cath says:

          great points AmandaM! You’re right!

        • Gabriel Germaine says:

          I’m with you Amanda. Very well put.

        • Namesake says:

          hey, if you don’t want an overly-stated faulty critique publicly criticized – and if you really just want to help — don’t make it publicly, particularly when the toothpaste is already out of the tube, as it were.

          You could send your questions & concerns privately to WK or the LPC, as the case may be, instead of calling foul on the play, and saying they’re not worthy of being in government for pursuing those tactics you disagree with or for making those claims you have made hasty assumptions about to conclude were in error.

          In this case, before anyone accuses someone of making a misleading claim about an internet search, they should try said search themselves, first, using the most widely used search engine by far, which, yes, is the default in the Safari browser, too; if you did, you’d see that the displayed search — ontario pc platofrm — yields that result:

          The Conservative Party plan for Ontario’s future – PC Party
          http://www.ontariopc.com/planforthefuture.asp

          as the first choice, which yields the 404 error when clicked.

          • Gabriel Germaine says:

            You seem like a really fun guy to hang out with Namesake. I get the impression you think you’re changing the world striking one key at a time and are the purveyor of truth among the ignorant masses that frequent WK’s blog. Good luck with that by the way. I’m confident one day you may feel giddy again when your chosen political party regains power again. It’s just as inevitable as the Tories one day governing us again after the Liberals take a turn. Sometimes I appreciate your thorough analysis and researched opinion but you can come off as an arrogant bore and worse, a hyper partisan. You seem to troll WK’s blog eagerly searching for Tory’s to bash but in your zest for a battle you end up bashing non-partisans who wish to discuss issues. Chill out and have a drink.

          • Namesake says:

            You know where you are, right? This IS a partisan Liberal site… and it’s the virtual war room, at that. The intent of the vast majority of the politically-oriented posts here is to undermine support for the Conservative parties and to bolster the Liberals (and/or nudge them to a more winnable or better thought-out position). To complain about me acting like a jihadi Liberal here is like complaining about rowdy hooliganism at… a soccer game.

            And since it IS so manifestly a Liberal blog — and one of the very first and still most influential one, at that — it’s the Conservatives posting heckling comments here who are doing the trolling; many of them are from SDA (Small Dead Animals) and want to keep getting in WK’s face because they’ll never forgive him for the “Barney” incident mocking Stockwell Day which greatly diminished the Reform Party’s electoral prospects back in 2000.

            As for Amanda, she’s not exactly non-partisan, either, which is why she’s bristling at my crit’s that she’s not helping the cause by trying to shut down certain lines of Opposition attack; she was a political staffer for an Ontario Liberal Minister — a Queen’s Park counterpart to these young guns on the Hill, “Many of [whom] are full-blown political junkies, whose partisan loyalties date back to youth politics”: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/features/Life-on-the-Hill-Young-guns-rule/4350453/story.html

  4. Kiel says:

    This is brilliant! Hudak material writes itself!

  5. James Bow says:

    Strangely enough, you get the same result with http://www.ontariopc.com/our-plan-to-defeat-the-liberals.asp and http://www.ontariopc.com/where-is-our-cheese.asp

    Is the specific link above listed in some PC literature? If so, then that’s an embarrassing oops.

    • James Bow says:

      Okay, I’ve read your reply to a comment above. And I’ll say again: “oops”, coupled with a “heh!”

      You I think it’s obvious — to me, anyway — that you could devastate Tim Hudak with a campaign similar to Harris’ 1999 shot of “He’s just not up to the job,” because he clearly isn’t. I look at McGuinty and I look at Hudak, and I don’t see any reason to make a change. McGuinty feels more competent, and while he doesn’t give me everything I want, he appears to be doing the best job he can under trying circumstances. I respect that.

      On the other hand, it’s worth noting that McGuinty didn’t get it right back in 1999, either. So while Hudak may not be up to the job in 2011, maybe things will be different in 2015.

  6. Sean says:

    when the folks at work gripe about McGuinty I always bring up Hudak. Inevitable responses tend to be along the lines of: “Tim Who?” “Mike Harris’ boy?” “I guess McGuinty’s not so bad.”

  7. Matt says:

    woops. maybe I should read all the comments before i post. My bad.

  8. Cath says:

    Warren – what was the outcome of your son’s chocolate bar experience?

Leave a Reply to Sean Cancel reply

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


*