Who would have thought that the "American Idol" finale would be the same day as Rosie O'Donnell's last appearance on "The View?"
Late news today from ABC that Rosie O'Donnell won't be coming back to ABC's "The View" after Wednesday's blow-up with Elisabeth Hasselbeck, even though her final show was originally to be June 20. (The show's website, for some reason, says that O'Donnell's last day will be this Monday.)
This means that O'Donnell will not have the opportunity to comment during the show about the story in today's Page Six, alleging that her writer defaced Hasselbeck's photos. Neither will she have the chance to moderate the promised 9/11 conspiracy segment, in which physicists from Yale and/or Harvard were to explain how Building 7 of the World Trade Centre was actually collapsed by explosives on 9/11. If I may take a page from Rosie's Big Book of Rhetorical Questions: who's the coward?
I've seen a strain of commentary, on both my blog and elsewhere, that suggests the "fight" with Hasselbeck was staged to goose ratings. I think O'Donnell's premature retreat tends to put the lie to that theory. Leaving this way, O'Donnell looks like she is running away after losing a fight to a conservative. (Not my take, by the way, I just think that it was a rare occasion on which Hasselbeck stood up to an attempt by O'Donnell to box her in and make the debate about her. Hasselbeck merely put the focus back on O'Donnell, where it belonged.)
Friday, May 25, 2007
Rosie O’Donnell has a writer???
Caught drawing moustaches on Hasselbeck’s photos at ABC studio
Rosie O’Donnell’s high school-esque demands that her View co-hosts stick up for her no matter what she says or does (or in some cases sustain the pretence that she doesn’t mean what she says) have been nicely complemented by the grade-school hijinks of her entourage. Today we learn courtesy of Page Six that O’Donnell’s writer at "The View" was caught defacing photos of Elisabeth Hasselbeck:
I wish I could generate some Captain Renault-style shock that one of O’Donnell’s peeps would pull such a stunt, but I just can’t.
I will, however, contrast O’Donnell’s exit strategy with Star Jones’ behaviour last year after she was fired from "The View." O’Donnell is leaving voluntarily, walking away from ABC’s offer of a three-year, $30-million dollar contract. Yet she seems intent on literally and figuratively smashing everything she can on her way out. From the Page Six story:
Star Jones, for those who don't remember, was for all intents and purposes fired; her contract was not renewed though she had no desire to leave the show. And she knew that she was leaving several months ahead of her final show. She was asked to finish out her contract and she did so in a professional manner. True, she did announce her departure one day earlier than agreed, and then told other media outlets that she “felt like she had been fired,” and that Barbara Walters “didn’t have her back.” But she has never said a bad word about the show or any of its co-hosts since. Jones now has her own show on Court TV.
Rosie O’Donnell’s high school-esque demands that her View co-hosts stick up for her no matter what she says or does (or in some cases sustain the pretence that she doesn’t mean what she says) have been nicely complemented by the grade-school hijinks of her entourage. Today we learn courtesy of Page Six that O’Donnell’s writer at "The View" was caught defacing photos of Elisabeth Hasselbeck:
Yesterday, Rosie’s chief writer, Janette Barber, was allegedly escorted from the building after she was caught drawing moustaches on photographs of Hasselbeck that hang in the “View” studios.
The Post’s Adam Buckman reports ABC confirmed in a statement only that “photographs at ‘The View’s’ offices were defaced. Rosie O’Donnell was not in the building. ABC Legal and Human Resources are investigating the matter.” Barber is an old friend of O’Donnell who worked with her years ago on “The Rosie O’Donnell Show.”
There were also rumors O’Donnell was so angry after her argument with Hasselbeck that she trashed her dressing room, although ABC denied the tantrum.
I wish I could generate some Captain Renault-style shock that one of O’Donnell’s peeps would pull such a stunt, but I just can’t.
I will, however, contrast O’Donnell’s exit strategy with Star Jones’ behaviour last year after she was fired from "The View." O’Donnell is leaving voluntarily, walking away from ABC’s offer of a three-year, $30-million dollar contract. Yet she seems intent on literally and figuratively smashing everything she can on her way out. From the Page Six story:
As for O’Donnell, she’s been posting comments on her personal Web site, rosie.com, fueling speculation she might not return to “The View” ever again. Her scheduled last day is Wednesday, June 20.Well, we'll see. Decency would demand that she show up for at least one day, to apologize to Hasselbeck for her flunky's behaviour. But for all we know, O'Donnell is still mad at Hasselbeck, and is not going to give her the satisfaction of an apology. Further, O'Donnell's anger at Hasselbeck seems largely based on Hasselbeck's refusal to apologize for the attacks of Fox News and others on O'Donnell. And returning to "The View" would only help their ratings, so what's the point?
When one fan wrote, “Work isn’t worth that battle,” Rosie replied, “Agreed.” Another wrote, “Please walk away. It’s not worth it.” Rosie replied, “Well, you know when it’s time to go.”
To a fan who asked when she would return, O’Donnell answered, “No idea.”
Yesterday, O’Donnell posted a video that may have symbolized how she’s feeling about “The View.”
The tape consisted of ducks swimming in a pond accompanied by an audio track of the John Mayer song “Vultures,” whose lyrics include “How will I hold my head to keep from going under?”
Officially, “The View” expects O’Donnell to return to work on Tuesday.
Star Jones, for those who don't remember, was for all intents and purposes fired; her contract was not renewed though she had no desire to leave the show. And she knew that she was leaving several months ahead of her final show. She was asked to finish out her contract and she did so in a professional manner. True, she did announce her departure one day earlier than agreed, and then told other media outlets that she “felt like she had been fired,” and that Barbara Walters “didn’t have her back.” But she has never said a bad word about the show or any of its co-hosts since. Jones now has her own show on Court TV.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
An injustice averted, thanks to the Harper government
What Bob Rae’s quick-and-dirty Air India review would have missed
From the editorial in the May 28th issue of Macleans:
In November of 2005, the Martin government accepted Bob Rae’s recommendation to appoint “a Commissioner under Cabinet Order in Council who is given a clear mandate, and an assurance of full cooperation.” Were it not for the Liberals’ defeat in January 2006, that is the type of inquiry that would be taking place now (or God knows when).
And Rae’s conversion to Liberalism in April of 2006 puts his “independent” report of the previous November in a somewhat different context. Would it be unfair to say that, while writing the report, Rae was already a Liberal-in-utero? Again, had the Martin goverment survived, Rae's latent Liberalism may have remained as unknown as the Lieutenant-Governor who barked and the dog that didn't sniff.
True, the inquiry may yet reveal incompetence – or worse – on the Mulroney government’s watch, but it is to the Harper government’s credit that it is prepared to face that eventuality.
From the editorial in the May 28th issue of Macleans:
Yet after all this formal scrutiny, plus countless media treatments and a steady outcry from the families of the victims over the past two decades, the inquiry headed by former Supreme Court justice John Major is still producing new and shocking revelations. Recent surprises include the testimony of Ontario Lieutenant-Governor James Bartleman, who claims he saw a specific threat related to Air India for the weekend of June 22-23, 1985, when he was with the Department of External Affairs but was rebuffed by the RCMP. Last week Serge Carignan, a former Sûreté du Québec police-dog handler, said he had been summoned to Mirabel Airport to sniff for bombs, only to discover the fated plane had already left. None of this had been revealed previously.
Given all this, it is now clear that the Rae report's call for a quick and cheap order-in-council inquiry was entirely wrong-headed. Quick and cheap would have glossed over the massive screw-ups, dissuaded new witnesses from coming forward, and done a disservice to the victims' families. The Harper government was correct in ignoring Rae and instead delivering on its campaign promise to hold a "comprehensive, independent judicial inquiry." After two decades of half measures, Major should take as long as he needs to make sure Canadians finally get the full story. Everything else has been preamble.
In November of 2005, the Martin government accepted Bob Rae’s recommendation to appoint “a Commissioner under Cabinet Order in Council who is given a clear mandate, and an assurance of full cooperation.” Were it not for the Liberals’ defeat in January 2006, that is the type of inquiry that would be taking place now (or God knows when).
And Rae’s conversion to Liberalism in April of 2006 puts his “independent” report of the previous November in a somewhat different context. Would it be unfair to say that, while writing the report, Rae was already a Liberal-in-utero? Again, had the Martin goverment survived, Rae's latent Liberalism may have remained as unknown as the Lieutenant-Governor who barked and the dog that didn't sniff.
True, the inquiry may yet reveal incompetence – or worse – on the Mulroney government’s watch, but it is to the Harper government’s credit that it is prepared to face that eventuality.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Good thing Mickey's no longer minding the Mounties’ trademarks* . . .
Disney CEO says that objecting to Hamas’ use of Mickey Mouse-like character would have had no effect (except getting Disneyworld blown up, maybe).
I remember reading once that there is a cautionary saying in Hollywood about not taking on Disney Studios, that goes something like "don't f--- with the Mouse." Not anymore, apparently. From the Associated Press:
Good call, chief. Because Hamas has such a good record of self-correcting its extremism. And it’s not like allowing Western images to be abused is interpreted as weakness in the Arab world, or anything like that.
But then those things are not Iger’s concern. His baileywick is Disney's world – not the world that makes Disney possible.
In addition to handling the careers of Mickey, Goofy, Pluto, Donald Duck (not Daffy, sorry) and Huey, Dewey and Louie, Disney also brings Rosie O’Donnell and her unique views into your living room every weekday, through its subsidiary ABC.
* In 1995 the federal government gave Disney control over the RCMP’s trademarks, such as the Mountie uniform. The rationale was that the RCMP simply didn’t have Disney’s experience in protecting intellectual property. The contract was allowed to expire in 1999 and the RCMP deals with its own trademarks now.
I remember reading once that there is a cautionary saying in Hollywood about not taking on Disney Studios, that goes something like "don't f--- with the Mouse." Not anymore, apparently. From the Associated Press:
The Walt Disney Co. didn’t speak out when Hamas militants used a Mickey Mouse look-alike to preach Islamic domination because the company felt it would be ineffective, Disney’s chief executive said Monday.
Disney CEO Robert Iger said he and other executives considered ways to react to the recent Hamas show for children that featured someone dressed in what appeared to be a Mickey Mouse costume, railing against Israel and the United States in a high-pitched cartoonish voice.
“We didn’t mobilize our forces and seek to either have the clip taken down or to make any broad public statement about it,” Iger told a gathering of the Society of Business Editors and Writers at the Disneyland Hotel.
“We were appalled by the use of our character to disseminate that kind of message,” he said “I think anytime any group seeks to exploit children in that manner, it’s despicable.”
Still, Iger said it didn’t seem to make any sense for Disney to make any loud public statement at the time.
“I just didn’t think it would have any effect,” he said. ‘I think it should have been obvious how the company felt about the subject.”
Iger's comments were the first from Disney since the images aired earlier this month on Al-Aqsa TV, a station run by Hamas. At the time, Disney did not return phone calls seeking comment, a strategy Iger said the company adopted after some discussion.
Good call, chief. Because Hamas has such a good record of self-correcting its extremism. And it’s not like allowing Western images to be abused is interpreted as weakness in the Arab world, or anything like that.
But then those things are not Iger’s concern. His baileywick is Disney's world – not the world that makes Disney possible.
In addition to handling the careers of Mickey, Goofy, Pluto, Donald Duck (not Daffy, sorry) and Huey, Dewey and Louie, Disney also brings Rosie O’Donnell and her unique views into your living room every weekday, through its subsidiary ABC.
* In 1995 the federal government gave Disney control over the RCMP’s trademarks, such as the Mountie uniform. The rationale was that the RCMP simply didn’t have Disney’s experience in protecting intellectual property. The contract was allowed to expire in 1999 and the RCMP deals with its own trademarks now.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Just when you thought there was no fight left in the Bush administration . . .
From Reuters:
The White House on Sunday fired back at former President Jimmy Carter, calling him “increasingly irrelevant” a day after Carter described George W. Bush’s presidency as the worst in history in international relations.
Carter, a Democrat, said on Saturday in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that “as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”
White House spokesman Tony Fratto had declined to react on Saturday but on Sunday fired back.
“I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there,” Fratto told reporters. “I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”
The White House on Sunday fired back at former President Jimmy Carter, calling him “increasingly irrelevant” a day after Carter described George W. Bush’s presidency as the worst in history in international relations.
Carter, a Democrat, said on Saturday in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that “as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”
White House spokesman Tony Fratto had declined to react on Saturday but on Sunday fired back.
“I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there,” Fratto told reporters. “I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”
Hmm . . . hasn’t McGuinty been doing this for nearly four years already?
In the Commons, the normally astute Human Resources Minister Monte Solberg went to the Tories’ first line of defence, attacking the Liberals for their cuts to students in the past.
This is an increasingly disheartening and pointless strategy, boring and dishonest. The Tories are the government, and they cut many fine groups that the Liberals funded for years. Blame the Liberals for that? Are the Tories smoking crack? Do they think anyone listening is stupid enough to swallow that? They insult their own intelligence by trying to peddle such rotten baloney.
--Stephen Maher, Halifax Chronicle-Herald
Well, the Queen's Park media seem to like the taste of it.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Conrad Black, defender of editorial independence
Called David Asper’s Shawinigate op-ed “un-rigorous and hostile to your own employees”
From today’s Globe and Mail:
Mr. Asper’s son, David, a CanWest executive, began taking issue with the Post’s coverage of the so-called Shawinigate scandal, which involved allegations that Mr. Chrétien had improperly helped a business colleague get a loan from a federal agency for his hotel in Shawinigan. At the time, Lord Black and Mr. Chrétien were also sparring over his appointment to Britain’s upper chamber. The Aspers were long-time Liberals and many observers were convinced they would rein in the Post’s coverage.
On Jan. 5, 2001, Lord Black wrote Mr. Asper to complain about David’s interference saying it was “not reconcilable” with the corporate partnership. “I am aware that considerable pressure has been exerted by David on National Post editorial personnel on behalf of Chrétien,” Lord Black wrote, adding that the Prime Minister’s Office “is not composed of reasonable people.”
On March 7, 2001, David wrote a column in the Post criticizing the paper’s coverage, calling it unfair. The Post ran an editorial the same day defending its reporting and taking David to task.
Six days later, Mr. Asper fired off an angry letter to Lord Black threatening to sever their joint ownership of the Post. Mr. Asper called the Post’s criticism of his son “outrageous” and blamed Lord Black for orchestrating the subsequent fallout in other media.
“Neither you nor I would profit from a public battle, which would give great pleasure to those who wish neither of us well, but regrettably, you have chosen to publicly throw a gauntlet, administer a public slap in the face which has both embarrassed, humiliated and held up to ridicule and dishonour both my family and my company,” he wrote. “You will readily understand why I won’t remain silent.”
Lord Black replied: responded the next day, calling Mr. Asper’s reproaches “completely unjustified.” “The piece [David] wrote was un-rigorous and hostile to your own employees with consequences that were foreseeable and predicted,” he wrote. “I did not orchestrate anything.”
Lord Black said senior editors at the Post had told David that if he wrote his article it would “produce great resentment amongst the journalists and would appear to anyone in [Canada] still interested in an independent press to be servile toadying to a rather corrupt regime in what is now more or less a one-party state.”
He added that David was told he should write a “substantive piece,” stating specific reporting mistakes.
From today’s Globe and Mail:
Mr. Asper’s son, David, a CanWest executive, began taking issue with the Post’s coverage of the so-called Shawinigate scandal, which involved allegations that Mr. Chrétien had improperly helped a business colleague get a loan from a federal agency for his hotel in Shawinigan. At the time, Lord Black and Mr. Chrétien were also sparring over his appointment to Britain’s upper chamber. The Aspers were long-time Liberals and many observers were convinced they would rein in the Post’s coverage.
On Jan. 5, 2001, Lord Black wrote Mr. Asper to complain about David’s interference saying it was “not reconcilable” with the corporate partnership. “I am aware that considerable pressure has been exerted by David on National Post editorial personnel on behalf of Chrétien,” Lord Black wrote, adding that the Prime Minister’s Office “is not composed of reasonable people.”
On March 7, 2001, David wrote a column in the Post criticizing the paper’s coverage, calling it unfair. The Post ran an editorial the same day defending its reporting and taking David to task.
Six days later, Mr. Asper fired off an angry letter to Lord Black threatening to sever their joint ownership of the Post. Mr. Asper called the Post’s criticism of his son “outrageous” and blamed Lord Black for orchestrating the subsequent fallout in other media.
“Neither you nor I would profit from a public battle, which would give great pleasure to those who wish neither of us well, but regrettably, you have chosen to publicly throw a gauntlet, administer a public slap in the face which has both embarrassed, humiliated and held up to ridicule and dishonour both my family and my company,” he wrote. “You will readily understand why I won’t remain silent.”
Lord Black replied: responded the next day, calling Mr. Asper’s reproaches “completely unjustified.” “The piece [David] wrote was un-rigorous and hostile to your own employees with consequences that were foreseeable and predicted,” he wrote. “I did not orchestrate anything.”
Lord Black said senior editors at the Post had told David that if he wrote his article it would “produce great resentment amongst the journalists and would appear to anyone in [Canada] still interested in an independent press to be servile toadying to a rather corrupt regime in what is now more or less a one-party state.”
He added that David was told he should write a “substantive piece,” stating specific reporting mistakes.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Good for Galipeau
But keep your barf bags handy for McGuinty’s reaction
No doubt McGuinty the Lesser will stage an impromptu news conference, sporting the usual expression of pained piety he wears like a neck brace on a phoney car accident plaintiff.
An Ottawa MP has apologized after being accused of assaulting another MP from the city in the House of Commons Wednesday.
Conservative MP Royal Galipeau crossed the floor toward Liberal MP David McGuinty Wednesday afternoon, against parliamentary rules, after McGuinty accused him of not speaking against the government decision last fall to scrap the court challenges program, which is intended to protect francophone citizens.
"The member was clearly out of control, using unparliamentary language, and in a threatening fashion grabbed my left shoulder and only left my side when several of my colleagues urged him to stop and to leave," said McGuinty, who represents Ottawa South.
--CBC.ca
No doubt McGuinty the Lesser will stage an impromptu news conference, sporting the usual expression of pained piety he wears like a neck brace on a phoney car accident plaintiff.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Don't miss "Friday Night Lights"
Renewed for a second season on NBC, Global to start first-season reruns Wednesday
Global TV is airing reruns of the NBC series "Friday Night Lights" starting Wednesday, May 16th at 10:00 p.m. Eastern time.
Even better, NBC announced today that the show is to be renewed for a second season, and moved to Friday nights at 10:00, replacing the now unbearingly-Bush-bashing "Law & Order" (which has also been renewed).
I hope Global starts with the first episode, which I stupidly missed before becoming hooked on this brilliantly-written show, starting around the third episode. From the show's NBC website:
You don't even have to particularly like football to enjoy it, as much of the drama takes place off the field and stars a great cast of adult and young actors, the young actors getting better as the season progresses. Amazingly, the Christianity that is woven into the life of the town is handled intelligently and respectfully. Catch the show and you won't be sorry.
Postscript: The NBC has finally brought the axe down on the troubled "Studio 60" -- it will end its run this June.
Global TV is airing reruns of the NBC series "Friday Night Lights" starting Wednesday, May 16th at 10:00 p.m. Eastern time.
Even better, NBC announced today that the show is to be renewed for a second season, and moved to Friday nights at 10:00, replacing the now unbearingly-Bush-bashing "Law & Order" (which has also been renewed).
I hope Global starts with the first episode, which I stupidly missed before becoming hooked on this brilliantly-written show, starting around the third episode. From the show's NBC website:
Expanding on the hit feature film "Friday Night Lights," this poignant series centers on the small rural town of Dillon, Texas, where the coveted state football championship rings are held in the highest regard. Dillon's promising high school team, its star quarterback, and newly appointed head coach Eric Taylor (Kyle Chandler, "King Kong," "Grey's Anatomy") feel the mounting pressure of the town's pride and honor riding on their shoulders as a new football season kicks off.
You don't even have to particularly like football to enjoy it, as much of the drama takes place off the field and stars a great cast of adult and young actors, the young actors getting better as the season progresses. Amazingly, the Christianity that is woven into the life of the town is handled intelligently and respectfully. Catch the show and you won't be sorry.
Postscript: The NBC has finally brought the axe down on the troubled "Studio 60" -- it will end its run this June.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Nancy Drew and the Case of the Unread Files
Sun publishes Holland’s denial that he read 174 performance appraisals about 34 Conservative staffers
This clarification appeared in my copy of the Toronto Sun today (in case you hadn’t heard, you can now get the Sun delivered seven days a week in the 416):
The foregoing has been Holland’s line since the Case of the Purloined Documents morphed horribly from a story of Conservative negligence, into yet another tale of the Liberal party’s integrity deficit. (The Western Standard’s Kevin Steel provides a good rundown here – free registration required). Shortly thereafter, Holland made good on his threat to sue over Levant’s column.
But contrast Holland’s denials with what he and his fellow junior detective Marlene Jennings told the Ottawa Citizen’s Juliet O’Neill:
I hope Holland had the good sense to ensure that only Liberal staffers read those files too, to preserve his pristine deniability.
Clearly, Holland was – at the very least – well-briefed on the nature and contents of the documents prior to his participation in the Wellington Street photo op. To insist that he be cleared of the sin of actually reading them is the type of parsing that has been missing from public life since the retirement of Bill Clinton.
Further, Holland’s scurrying from a photo op turned sour, and subsequent blaming of political staff, provide an interesting preview of the kind of cabinet minister he might make if he were ever given the chance. A classic case of why politicians who’ve been running for prime minister since high school are my least-favourite kind.
This clarification appeared in my copy of the Toronto Sun today (in case you hadn’t heard, you can now get the Sun delivered seven days a week in the 416):
On April 3, the Sun published a column by Ezra Levant that implied Ajax-Pickering MP Mark Holland personally read through personnel files of former Canadian Alliance and Reform party staff.
We are advised by Holland and accept that he did not personally read the personnel files but rather they were looked through by a researcher at the Liberal Party Bureau.
Holland has also stated that he only learned of the existence of these files the previous week, and that he has never had them in his possession other than during a news conference.
The foregoing has been Holland’s line since the Case of the Purloined Documents morphed horribly from a story of Conservative negligence, into yet another tale of the Liberal party’s integrity deficit. (The Western Standard’s Kevin Steel provides a good rundown here – free registration required). Shortly thereafter, Holland made good on his threat to sue over Levant’s column.
But contrast Holland’s denials with what he and his fellow junior detective Marlene Jennings told the Ottawa Citizen’s Juliet O’Neill:
Accusing the minority government of “gross negligence”, two Liberal MPs had 10 boxes of Conservative personnel files carted on a trolley for three blocks through pouring rain to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office in order to have them returned.
The files contain highly personal information, judgments on individual employee performance and comments by their peers and supervisors, Ontario MP Mark Holland and Montreal MP Marlene Jennings said. They accused the government of “gross ineptitude” and “cavalier disregard” for privacy.
“If I’m one of the 34 people who had my personnel files left behind I’d be having a lot of questions and I’d be very upset,” said Holland, who noted 174 performance appraisals were among the documents.
Holland and Jennings said they held back another dozen boxes of papers in case they find some “of public interest.”
--Ottawa Citizen, March 27, 2007
I hope Holland had the good sense to ensure that only Liberal staffers read those files too, to preserve his pristine deniability.
Clearly, Holland was – at the very least – well-briefed on the nature and contents of the documents prior to his participation in the Wellington Street photo op. To insist that he be cleared of the sin of actually reading them is the type of parsing that has been missing from public life since the retirement of Bill Clinton.
Further, Holland’s scurrying from a photo op turned sour, and subsequent blaming of political staff, provide an interesting preview of the kind of cabinet minister he might make if he were ever given the chance. A classic case of why politicians who’ve been running for prime minister since high school are my least-favourite kind.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Americans. Writing talking points. For Liberals. (We are not making this up!)
Gore a convenient shield for Liberals’ own failures on climate change
Barely a year ago, Liberal campaign commercials were full of dark innuendo about American influences on the Conservatives. It turns out that the Liberal party that has fallen under American influence.
Twice in the House of Commons yesterday, Liberal members invoked the name of Al Gore – inventor of the Internet and inspiration for the novel “Love Story” – to buttress their opposition to a climate change plan that will “git ‘er done” after the Liberals, by the admissions of such luminaries as Michael Ignatieff and Ken Dryden, “didn’t get it done.”
Unfortunately, Gore has not learned from his experience with the Internet: he still has trouble getting credit for his genius. All the content in the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” is his, but it was his Hollywood friends who walked away with the Oscar statues. Gore couldn’t close the deal, much like a former Liberal environment minister, whose failure on Kyoto haunts the Liberals like Banquo’s ghost (and whose occupation of the Liberal throne is just about as welcome most days).
Why the Liberals would rely on the knee-jerk rhetoric of a former journalist who now does not deign to answer media questions, flies in private aircraft, and uses enough electricity for 20 families, is beyond me. (Though he recently got approval to install solar panels on his mansion.)
The likely explanation is that despite all this, standing next to the Liberal Party of Canada, Al Gore still looks more credible on the environment. Liberals are so embarrassed about their own record that they would rather shelter beneath the uninformed impressions of a failed American presidential candidate.
Barely a year ago, Liberal campaign commercials were full of dark innuendo about American influences on the Conservatives. It turns out that the Liberal party that has fallen under American influence.
Twice in the House of Commons yesterday, Liberal members invoked the name of Al Gore – inventor of the Internet and inspiration for the novel “Love Story” – to buttress their opposition to a climate change plan that will “git ‘er done” after the Liberals, by the admissions of such luminaries as Michael Ignatieff and Ken Dryden, “didn’t get it done.”
“Mr. Speaker, Al Gore has said that the Conservatives' platform is “a complete and total fraud”.
--Ken Dryden, MP
“Mr. Speaker, Al Gore and David Suzuki, not to mention every other credible environmentalist in the country, have unmasked the government's global warming plan for the fraud that it is. However, the environment minister still claims that it is a real plan to fight climate change even though it would allow greenhouse gas emissions in Canada to increase for another decade.” [Hey, at least she admitted the “another” part.]
--Karen Redman, MP
Unfortunately, Gore has not learned from his experience with the Internet: he still has trouble getting credit for his genius. All the content in the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” is his, but it was his Hollywood friends who walked away with the Oscar statues. Gore couldn’t close the deal, much like a former Liberal environment minister, whose failure on Kyoto haunts the Liberals like Banquo’s ghost (and whose occupation of the Liberal throne is just about as welcome most days).
Why the Liberals would rely on the knee-jerk rhetoric of a former journalist who now does not deign to answer media questions, flies in private aircraft, and uses enough electricity for 20 families, is beyond me. (Though he recently got approval to install solar panels on his mansion.)
The likely explanation is that despite all this, standing next to the Liberal Party of Canada, Al Gore still looks more credible on the environment. Liberals are so embarrassed about their own record that they would rather shelter beneath the uninformed impressions of a failed American presidential candidate.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Chrétien: there he goes again
Virginia Tech killer used handguns, which have been registered in Canada since the 1930s
I see that business consultant Jean Chrétien apparently regards the Virginia Tech massacre as a vindication of his government’s $2-billion long gun registry debacle. (If the reporter – CP’s Alexander Panetta – thought to ask Chrétien how the Dawson College shooting vindicated the gun registry, sadly Chrétien’s answer has been left out of the Star story.):
Now, this may be more a case of the Star – and not Chrétien – trying to connect Virginia Tech to the long gun registry, but regardless, and for the umpteenth time: the Liberal long-gun registry had no effect on the law regarding registration of handguns and fully-automatic weapons such as AK-47s, M-16s, etc. Handguns have been required to be individually registered since the 1930s. And people don’t have to register their bicycles – not in Toronto, anyway.
I see that business consultant Jean Chrétien apparently regards the Virginia Tech massacre as a vindication of his government’s $2-billion long gun registry debacle. (If the reporter – CP’s Alexander Panetta – thought to ask Chrétien how the Dawson College shooting vindicated the gun registry, sadly Chrétien’s answer has been left out of the Star story.):
“It’s a lot harder to get weapons here in Canada than in the U.S.,” Chrétien said.
“I was pretty stunned to see how easily he [the Virginia Tech shooter] managed to get himself armed to the teeth without any trouble. He would have had to answer a lot more questions here.”
One day after conducting the interview last week, the former Liberal prime minister was asked by the Conservative government to represent Canada at Boris Yeltsin’s funeral in Russia. But during the interview, he took a swipe at the Tories’ hostility to the long-gun registry his government introduced.
Critics have complained the Conservatives have rendered the registry toothless by waiving penalties for people who fail to register their firearms.
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day insists the latest one-year amnesty is an attempt to offer recalcitrant gun owners another chance to register their weapons. Chrétien said he can’t understand why people would be dead-set against registering their weapons.
“Apparently, you have to register your dog, no? And your bicycle, too. It’s way less dangerous than a gun,” the former prime minister said.
“There’s nothing to it. ... I don’t understand why we’re having a hard time getting people to register their firearms – when people register their bicycles and pets.”
-- Chrétien defends Liberals' long-gun registry, Virginia Tech carnage shows law's value, former PM argues, Toronto Star, today
Now, this may be more a case of the Star – and not Chrétien – trying to connect Virginia Tech to the long gun registry, but regardless, and for the umpteenth time: the Liberal long-gun registry had no effect on the law regarding registration of handguns and fully-automatic weapons such as AK-47s, M-16s, etc. Handguns have been required to be individually registered since the 1930s. And people don’t have to register their bicycles – not in Toronto, anyway.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
In case you missed Conan O’Brien last Friday
Check out this parody of the Aaron Sorkin series “Studio 60,” called “Studio 6A” – with Liev Schreiber playing Conan O’Brien.
It lampoons the pedantry, self-importance and torqued melodrama of Sorkin’s “The West Wing” (and, I’m guessing, “Studio 60,” but I’m not sure – I never saw it. Having to tolerate Brad Whitford every time I watch one of my favourite moves, “Kate & Leopold,” is about all I can take of him).
I was reminded of a joke “30 Rock” creator Tina Fey made recently at a public appearance. Referring to her outfit, she cracked “I hear Aaron Sorkin is in Los Angeles wearing the same dress - but longer, and not funny.”
“30 Rock” has been renewed for a second season. The future of “Studio 60” is uncertain. It has been pulled from NBC’s schedule, its timeslot filled by the “Black Donnellys” and “The Real Wedding Crashers.”
It lampoons the pedantry, self-importance and torqued melodrama of Sorkin’s “The West Wing” (and, I’m guessing, “Studio 60,” but I’m not sure – I never saw it. Having to tolerate Brad Whitford every time I watch one of my favourite moves, “Kate & Leopold,” is about all I can take of him).
I was reminded of a joke “30 Rock” creator Tina Fey made recently at a public appearance. Referring to her outfit, she cracked “I hear Aaron Sorkin is in Los Angeles wearing the same dress - but longer, and not funny.”
“30 Rock” has been renewed for a second season. The future of “Studio 60” is uncertain. It has been pulled from NBC’s schedule, its timeslot filled by the “Black Donnellys” and “The Real Wedding Crashers.”
Friday, April 13, 2007
Media Grindhouse: Kinsella and Brennan
Brennan remakes Kinsella, Star remakes the Post's apology
When the National Post published an apology to Brian Mulroney on its editorial page, for Warren Kinsella’s selective quoting of Mulroney’s testimony vis a vis his relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber, I resisted the urge to post it under the title “Fury’s Grovel.”
But now that veteran Toronto Star reporter and newly-elected Parliamentary Press Gallery President Richard “the Badger” Brennan has apparently made the exact same mistake, resulting in a correction in today’s Star, to remain silent would be unjust, and fairness and comedy demand that they both be posted:
First Feature: Planet Error
In the column "Don't Ignore this Scandal" by Warren Kinsella (Feb. 1), some of the testimony of former prime minister Brian Mulroney in his libel action against the government of Canada in 1996 was quoted. The column did not set the full context of a quote from the transcript where Mr. Mulroney said he had not had any dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber. The column did not report that Mr. Mulroney was answering a question about the purchase by the federal government of the Airbus product and stated that he had no dealings with Mr. Schreiber in that context. Elsewhere in the examination, Mr. Mulroney testified about conversations and meetings he had with Schreiber after Mr. Mulroney was out of the prime minister's office. The National Post sincerely regrets any false impression it created about the testimony of Mr. Mulroney and apologizes to him for any embarrassment or concern it has caused.
--"Brian Mulroney," National Post, March 1, 2007 [N.B.: this was published on the editorial page]
Second Feature: Desk-Proof
Several years ago, Mulroney sued Ottawa for libel and received an apology and a $2-million settlement. Under oath at a pre-trial hearing, he testified that he "never had any dealings" with Schreiber. However, in 2002, the former prime minister indirectly acknowledged he did receive money from Schreiber, but as payment for his help in promoting Schreiber's pasta business.
--“It’s the saga that just won’t end,” Richard Brennan (with files from Tonda MacCharles), Toronto Star, April 7
In a transcript of an examination for discovery held in 1996, former prime minister Brian Mulroney was asked a question about Karlheinz Schreiber and replied, ‘I had never had any dealings with him” A story in Saturday’s paper did not reproduce this quote in full. The Star regrets and false impression this error may have caused and apologizes to Mulroney.
--Corrections, Toronto Star, April 13
Well, at least Kinsella can no longer complain that the media is ignoring this story.
When the National Post published an apology to Brian Mulroney on its editorial page, for Warren Kinsella’s selective quoting of Mulroney’s testimony vis a vis his relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber, I resisted the urge to post it under the title “Fury’s Grovel.”
But now that veteran Toronto Star reporter and newly-elected Parliamentary Press Gallery President Richard “the Badger” Brennan has apparently made the exact same mistake, resulting in a correction in today’s Star, to remain silent would be unjust, and fairness and comedy demand that they both be posted:
First Feature: Planet Error
In the column "Don't Ignore this Scandal" by Warren Kinsella (Feb. 1), some of the testimony of former prime minister Brian Mulroney in his libel action against the government of Canada in 1996 was quoted. The column did not set the full context of a quote from the transcript where Mr. Mulroney said he had not had any dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber. The column did not report that Mr. Mulroney was answering a question about the purchase by the federal government of the Airbus product and stated that he had no dealings with Mr. Schreiber in that context. Elsewhere in the examination, Mr. Mulroney testified about conversations and meetings he had with Schreiber after Mr. Mulroney was out of the prime minister's office. The National Post sincerely regrets any false impression it created about the testimony of Mr. Mulroney and apologizes to him for any embarrassment or concern it has caused.
--"Brian Mulroney," National Post, March 1, 2007 [N.B.: this was published on the editorial page]
Second Feature: Desk-Proof
Several years ago, Mulroney sued Ottawa for libel and received an apology and a $2-million settlement. Under oath at a pre-trial hearing, he testified that he "never had any dealings" with Schreiber. However, in 2002, the former prime minister indirectly acknowledged he did receive money from Schreiber, but as payment for his help in promoting Schreiber's pasta business.
--“It’s the saga that just won’t end,” Richard Brennan (with files from Tonda MacCharles), Toronto Star, April 7
In a transcript of an examination for discovery held in 1996, former prime minister Brian Mulroney was asked a question about Karlheinz Schreiber and replied, ‘I had never had any dealings with him” A story in Saturday’s paper did not reproduce this quote in full. The Star regrets and false impression this error may have caused and apologizes to Mulroney.
--Corrections, Toronto Star, April 13
Well, at least Kinsella can no longer complain that the media is ignoring this story.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Exit Stronach, enter May
Getting into bed with Liberals looks bad on May; conceding a seat not so flattering to Dion either
What with all the women coming and going, the Liberal Party of Canada is starting to resemble one of those French farces, replete with slamming doors, hastily-contrived explanations for people being where they shouldn’t, and general déshabillé. Or perhaps I’m thinking of a Benny Hill sketch.
If it weren’t for the unfortunate coincidence that both Belinda Stronach and Elizabeth May are women, I might say something to the effect that there must be a reason why no society has ever completely eliminated prostitution. Oops, I guess I just did. I hope the fact that I am a woman will lessen any sexism that might be inferred from the observation.
Anyhow, this is only partially about May. Mostly it’s about Dion. It seems the Conservative party’s ads that say “Stephane Dion is not a leader” were so effective, they convinced even Dion himself. A leader of a so-called national party does not concede any seat before all the votes are in. Dion has done so even before an election has been called.
As for May, her détente Liberale will put in her the awkward position of having to defend the federal Liberals’ sorry environmental record (psst – that’s a hint to the Conservatives and NDP). But if she thinks Dion was such a good environment minister, and would make a good prime minister, then why doesn’t she run as a Liberal?
Also posting on this:
Dissonance and Disrespect
Adam Daifallah
Dust My Broom
Canadian Jedi
What with all the women coming and going, the Liberal Party of Canada is starting to resemble one of those French farces, replete with slamming doors, hastily-contrived explanations for people being where they shouldn’t, and general déshabillé. Or perhaps I’m thinking of a Benny Hill sketch.
If it weren’t for the unfortunate coincidence that both Belinda Stronach and Elizabeth May are women, I might say something to the effect that there must be a reason why no society has ever completely eliminated prostitution. Oops, I guess I just did. I hope the fact that I am a woman will lessen any sexism that might be inferred from the observation.
Anyhow, this is only partially about May. Mostly it’s about Dion. It seems the Conservative party’s ads that say “Stephane Dion is not a leader” were so effective, they convinced even Dion himself. A leader of a so-called national party does not concede any seat before all the votes are in. Dion has done so even before an election has been called.
As for May, her détente Liberale will put in her the awkward position of having to defend the federal Liberals’ sorry environmental record (psst – that’s a hint to the Conservatives and NDP). But if she thinks Dion was such a good environment minister, and would make a good prime minister, then why doesn’t she run as a Liberal?
Also posting on this:
Dissonance and Disrespect
Adam Daifallah
Dust My Broom
Canadian Jedi
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
No apparent conflict for Stronach, but Liberals likely have one less vote
(And there’s not much Dion can do about it)
In answer to any dark mutterings about Belinda Stronach and conflicts of interest, please note the following excerpts from the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons:
On the one hand, given that Belinda Stronach is a member of the opposition and, it is fair to say, among the governing party’s least favourite people, it will be difficult to allege that she could exert any undue influence on the government.
On the other hand, minority Parliaments are different, in that opposition parties and members can and do exert greater influence on the content and passage of legislation than in a majority situation. Stronach’s preference will probably be to sit out most votes and debates (if she is even able to find the time to come to Ottawa in the first place), and Dion has neither leverage to compel her attendance nor incentive to force a by-election.
So not only is Stronach’s seat now in jeopardy, the Liberals may also have effectively lost one of their MPs for voting purposes in the Commons.
In answer to any dark mutterings about Belinda Stronach and conflicts of interest, please note the following excerpts from the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons:
7. Nothing in this Code prevents Members who are not ministers of the Crown or parliamentary secretaries from any of the following, as long as they are able to fulfill their obligations under this Code:
(a) engaging in employment or in the practice of a profession;
(b) carrying on a business;
(c) being a director or officer in a corporation, association, trade union or non-profit organization; and
(d) being a partner in a partnership.
12.(1) A Member who has reasonable grounds to believe that he or she or a member of his or her family has a private interest that might be affected by a matter that is before the House of Commons or a committee of which the Member is a member shall, if present during consideration of the matter, disclose orally or in writing the general nature of the private interest at the first opportunity. The general nature of the private interest shall be disclosed forthwith in writing to the Clerk of the House.
13. A Member shall not participate in debate on or vote on a question in which he or she has a private interest.
On the one hand, given that Belinda Stronach is a member of the opposition and, it is fair to say, among the governing party’s least favourite people, it will be difficult to allege that she could exert any undue influence on the government.
On the other hand, minority Parliaments are different, in that opposition parties and members can and do exert greater influence on the content and passage of legislation than in a majority situation. Stronach’s preference will probably be to sit out most votes and debates (if she is even able to find the time to come to Ottawa in the first place), and Dion has neither leverage to compel her attendance nor incentive to force a by-election.
So not only is Stronach’s seat now in jeopardy, the Liberals may also have effectively lost one of their MPs for voting purposes in the Commons.
In the words of Larry Birkhead: “I told you so”
But don’t rule out a Stronach return to politics
Recently I observed to a few people that if Magna were successful in taking over Chrysler, Belinda Stronach would be provided with a plausible rationale for returning to Magna, and the Conservatives could get back the Newmarket-Aurora seat. She is not even waiting long enough for the takeover to go through. From Canadian Press:
I’d love to know how many members of the corporate leadership who aren’t named Stronach encouraged her to return. As others have observed, the last time she quit Magna her job was left, er, vacant. But this time she is replacing someone, her father's longtime associate Manfred Gingl. Gingl announced recently that he is taking over Magna's new after-market division. (N.B. if you Google Gingl (tee hee), you will find a March 31st Toronto Star story about his departure.)
The Conservatives have already nominated Lois Brown to contest the Newmarket-Aurora seat.
Given Stronach’s high regard for her own abilities and dilettantism – which she calls “always assessing the best role I can play in public life” – I lay at least even odds that she runs again.
Recently I observed to a few people that if Magna were successful in taking over Chrysler, Belinda Stronach would be provided with a plausible rationale for returning to Magna, and the Conservatives could get back the Newmarket-Aurora seat. She is not even waiting long enough for the takeover to go through. From Canadian Press:
OTTAWA — Belinda Stronach’s brief but tumultuous foray into federal politics is about to end.
The heiress to the auto-parts fortune announced today that she won’t seek re-election in the next federal election and will become executive vice-chairwoman of Magna International Inc. (TSX:MG.A).
“I am always assessing the best role I can play in public life and, after being encouraged by members of the corporate leadership at Magna to return, I have decided that the timing of my return to the business should not be delayed,” Stronach said in a news release.
I’d love to know how many members of the corporate leadership who aren’t named Stronach encouraged her to return. As others have observed, the last time she quit Magna her job was left, er, vacant. But this time she is replacing someone, her father's longtime associate Manfred Gingl. Gingl announced recently that he is taking over Magna's new after-market division. (N.B. if you Google Gingl (tee hee), you will find a March 31st Toronto Star story about his departure.)
The Conservatives have already nominated Lois Brown to contest the Newmarket-Aurora seat.
Given Stronach’s high regard for her own abilities and dilettantism – which she calls “always assessing the best role I can play in public life” – I lay at least even odds that she runs again.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The media giveth, and go f--- yourself”
Is my favourite line from the film “Primary Colours” (Billy Bob Thornton’s character says it). A fresh example of this phenomenon is now emerging, via Senator John McCain. Fred Barnes writes on the daily Standard:
As I argued on March 19th, McCain has long had a bad case of wanting to be loved by the media (i.e. Mulroney Disease). This is dangerous, I wrote, because “the media are often poor proxies for the public, and their tastes in politicians and policies are as unreliable as Britney Spears’ lingerie drawer.”
McCain is also being ridiculed in some quarters for his assertion that he was able to walk safely through parts of Baghdad on a recent visit, because he was accompanied by a large armed contingent. But this April 4th ABC report supports his view.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal weighs in today with its editorial, "McCain's finest hour:"
What’s happened to McCain as he runs for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination is a “tragedy,” E.J. Dionne wrote in the Washington Post. Newsweek headlined that a “McCain Meltdown” had occurred. In the New York Times, Frank Rich was beside himself. On CBS’s 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley got McCain to zing Bush and his administration but couldn’t get him to agree that the public’s disapproval of the war in Iraq should prevail today. “I think you have to stick with what you believe in,” McCain said.
That attitude used to thrill the press. Reporters and commentators gushed about McCain the political maverick and straight talker who was willing to take on his own party and president. McCain, in truth, has continued to do this, saying in the 60 Minutes interview that Bush should talk to Syria and Iran and shut down the Guantanamo prison. He’s persisted as well in criticizing Bush’s management of the war.
But all of that is no longer enough to satisfy the press. Why? Because McCain hasn’t bought into the verdict, rampant in the media, that the war in Iraq is lost and victory cannot be salvaged. Instead, he backs the president’s new strategy of counterinsurgency in Baghdad, bolstered by 21,500 additional troops, and insists that progress is already being made.
As I argued on March 19th, McCain has long had a bad case of wanting to be loved by the media (i.e. Mulroney Disease). This is dangerous, I wrote, because “the media are often poor proxies for the public, and their tastes in politicians and policies are as unreliable as Britney Spears’ lingerie drawer.”
McCain is also being ridiculed in some quarters for his assertion that he was able to walk safely through parts of Baghdad on a recent visit, because he was accompanied by a large armed contingent. But this April 4th ABC report supports his view.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal weighs in today with its editorial, "McCain's finest hour:"
Not surprisingly, all this has the media in a state of apoplexy, with his former liberal pals shaking their heads in phony regret that his supposed blunder in Baghdad--observing last week that a market is safer than it was only a few months ago--is going to sink his candidacy. Our view is that Mr. McCain's difficulty so far in attracting conservative voters has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with the positions that once made him the media darling. On the contrary, his support for the war and his appreciation of the stakes is one thing that keeps his candidacy alive, at least within the Republican Party.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The Apology-Lawsuit Party
Liberals give a writ about their own egos, but not Canadians’ priorities
I don’t know whether it’s the friendship with Belinda Stronach, but erstwhile tough guy Tie Domi is sure starting to act like a full-fledged member of the Liberal Party of Canada, which lately looks more like the League of Extraordinarily Touchy Gentlemen:
With his donning of the Kleenex mantle, Domi joins a group of Liberal politicians who have similarly tried to paint themselves as victims. (I wonder: can a group of victims have an enforcer?) And by filing a libel notice, Domi’s not just a member, he’s also a plaintiff.
You know, it wasn’t so long ago that the Liberal Party of Canada was an awesome machine that won majorities, shed dollars like dander, and randomly sucked up politicians from other parties.
But having to arrange one’s own transportation, and the other indignities of being stripped of power, appear to have reduced the former leviathan to a sewing circle of tenderized egos and barely suppressed fury.
In just the last few months, the Liberals have issued shrill and sometimes coordinated demands for apologies in the following instances (even threatening lawsuits in some of them):
Belinda Stronach, because some Liberal MPs claim Peter McKay compared her to a dog.
Ralph Goodale, because charges were eventually laid against a civil servant over the income trust scandal, but not against him – which in his mind proved the former finance minister blameless. On the various political chat shows, Goodale was visibly angered for several weeks, regardless of the topic at hand.
Navdeep Bains, because during Question Period Stephen Harper started to read a news story revealing that one of Bains’ relatives may be a witness in the Air India inquiry. The Liberal caucus promptly abandoned its prepared questions and spent all its time in Question Period demanding an apology – for words that were never entered into the record, because the same Liberals shouted the PM down before he could even get to the story’s juicy bits.
Gerard Kennedy, Navdeep Bains and Omar Alghabra are suing the National Post over Jonathan Kay’s column in which an unnamed source alleged that Kennedy obtained the support of delegate blocs controlled by Bains and Alghabra, in exchange for a promise to oppose national security measures.
Michael Ignatieff, because Peter Van Loan described Ignatieff as a member “who said that torture is justified when dealing with terrorists.” Ignatieff’s demand that Van Loan withdraw his comments was met by Van Loan reading several of Ignatieff’s quotes into the record, including, “defeating terror requires violence” and. “It may also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.”
Stephane Dion, for Stephen Harper’s quip during Question Period that “I can understand that the leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for Taliban prisoners. I just wish occasionally they’d show the same passion for Canadian soldiers.”
Mark “Nancy Drew” Holland is (according to National Newswatch) considering suing Sun Media columnist Ezra Levant, over Levant’s April 3rd column about Holland’s possession of dozens of confidential Conservative staff records.
I’m sure my five or so devoted readers will enlighten me as to any other examples I may have missed.
When an opposition party chooses to spend a good chunk of its limited media exposure demanding apologies and threatening lawsuits over typical Question Period rhetoric, offhand remarks, or the theories of columnists, it is sending a message to the public. The message is that the party in question regards the images and self-esteem of its officials as the most pressing public issue there is. More important than Afghanistan, terrorism, taxes, the economy, health care, crime, child care, national unity – you get the picture.
The likely root cause of this obsession with slights, apologies and lawsuits (oh my!) is that the federal Liberal party remains in a deep funk and an even deeper denial over the fact that they are in opposition, and it was that rube Stephen Harper who put them there. Until they get past this, they are unlikely to be serious contenders for power. As Paul Wells has often observed, the guy who auditions for the job of opposition leader usually gets it. Looking at the Liberal party under Stephane Dion, I can't help but be reminded of the newly-defeated Ontario PC party of 1985 proclaiming "We'll be right back." We weren't. For 10 years.
Yes, the Conservative party and its predecessors suffered their share of calumnies, and demanded their share of apologies. But I don’t recall the demands being as frequent or all-consuming as the ones that obsess the Liberals of today. More to the point, did Elinor Caplan ever apologize for calling CA supporters bigots and holocaust deniers? Hardly. Part of the discipline of achieving and maintaining power is not being distracted by personal issues that mean little to accessible voters.
Macleans’ Aaron Wherry beat me to this topic, but he cast his aspersions on both houses:
I don’t know whether it’s the friendship with Belinda Stronach, but erstwhile tough guy Tie Domi is sure starting to act like a full-fledged member of the Liberal Party of Canada, which lately looks more like the League of Extraordinarily Touchy Gentlemen:
Tie Domi served notice yesterday on his son’s coach that he will seek damages for slandering and libelling the ex-Maple Leafs enforcer with accusations of rink rage.
Domi’s intentions, drafted by his lawyer Symon Zucker, were sent to Lucas Miller a day after the coach told reporters his version of a confrontation last Friday.
The Sun was contacted by people who claimed Domi became verbally abusive at Miller for not giving his son Max, 11, enough ice time during a playoff game as captain of the minor peewee AAA Toronto Marlboros.
The team lost to the Toronto Red Wings that night.
Witnesses differed dramatically in their recollections, claiming Domi swore at the coach and used threatening body language.
--Toronto Sun, today
With his donning of the Kleenex mantle, Domi joins a group of Liberal politicians who have similarly tried to paint themselves as victims. (I wonder: can a group of victims have an enforcer?) And by filing a libel notice, Domi’s not just a member, he’s also a plaintiff.
You know, it wasn’t so long ago that the Liberal Party of Canada was an awesome machine that won majorities, shed dollars like dander, and randomly sucked up politicians from other parties.
But having to arrange one’s own transportation, and the other indignities of being stripped of power, appear to have reduced the former leviathan to a sewing circle of tenderized egos and barely suppressed fury.
In just the last few months, the Liberals have issued shrill and sometimes coordinated demands for apologies in the following instances (even threatening lawsuits in some of them):
Belinda Stronach, because some Liberal MPs claim Peter McKay compared her to a dog.
Ralph Goodale, because charges were eventually laid against a civil servant over the income trust scandal, but not against him – which in his mind proved the former finance minister blameless. On the various political chat shows, Goodale was visibly angered for several weeks, regardless of the topic at hand.
Navdeep Bains, because during Question Period Stephen Harper started to read a news story revealing that one of Bains’ relatives may be a witness in the Air India inquiry. The Liberal caucus promptly abandoned its prepared questions and spent all its time in Question Period demanding an apology – for words that were never entered into the record, because the same Liberals shouted the PM down before he could even get to the story’s juicy bits.
Gerard Kennedy, Navdeep Bains and Omar Alghabra are suing the National Post over Jonathan Kay’s column in which an unnamed source alleged that Kennedy obtained the support of delegate blocs controlled by Bains and Alghabra, in exchange for a promise to oppose national security measures.
Michael Ignatieff, because Peter Van Loan described Ignatieff as a member “who said that torture is justified when dealing with terrorists.” Ignatieff’s demand that Van Loan withdraw his comments was met by Van Loan reading several of Ignatieff’s quotes into the record, including, “defeating terror requires violence” and. “It may also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.”
Stephane Dion, for Stephen Harper’s quip during Question Period that “I can understand that the leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for Taliban prisoners. I just wish occasionally they’d show the same passion for Canadian soldiers.”
Mark “Nancy Drew” Holland is (according to National Newswatch) considering suing Sun Media columnist Ezra Levant, over Levant’s April 3rd column about Holland’s possession of dozens of confidential Conservative staff records.
I’m sure my five or so devoted readers will enlighten me as to any other examples I may have missed.
When an opposition party chooses to spend a good chunk of its limited media exposure demanding apologies and threatening lawsuits over typical Question Period rhetoric, offhand remarks, or the theories of columnists, it is sending a message to the public. The message is that the party in question regards the images and self-esteem of its officials as the most pressing public issue there is. More important than Afghanistan, terrorism, taxes, the economy, health care, crime, child care, national unity – you get the picture.
The likely root cause of this obsession with slights, apologies and lawsuits (oh my!) is that the federal Liberal party remains in a deep funk and an even deeper denial over the fact that they are in opposition, and it was that rube Stephen Harper who put them there. Until they get past this, they are unlikely to be serious contenders for power. As Paul Wells has often observed, the guy who auditions for the job of opposition leader usually gets it. Looking at the Liberal party under Stephane Dion, I can't help but be reminded of the newly-defeated Ontario PC party of 1985 proclaiming "We'll be right back." We weren't. For 10 years.
Yes, the Conservative party and its predecessors suffered their share of calumnies, and demanded their share of apologies. But I don’t recall the demands being as frequent or all-consuming as the ones that obsess the Liberals of today. More to the point, did Elinor Caplan ever apologize for calling CA supporters bigots and holocaust deniers? Hardly. Part of the discipline of achieving and maintaining power is not being distracted by personal issues that mean little to accessible voters.
Macleans’ Aaron Wherry beat me to this topic, but he cast his aspersions on both houses:
The question now, you might think, is whatever happened to parliamentary decorum. But you would be wrong. Because the real question is this: When did our MPs become such a bunch of weenies?
A couple weeks short of the five-year anniversary of Keith Martin’s seizing the ceremonial mace and declaring Canadian democracy to be dead, let’s not kid ourselves with another lament for lost civility. By comparison with, say, this, our elected representatives still seem nearly demure.
More worrisome is this culture of apology and besmirched honour that seems to be overtaking our nation’s more sensitive officials.
For the Liberals this seems something of a strategy - claim offense at every government insult and portray the Prime Minister as little more than a big bully in the process. But the sight of Stéphane Dion stomping out of the House like a six-year-old this week was surely a dispiriting one to behold. And Thursday’s proceedings brought the whole thing down to the level of farce.
Somehow, expressing shock and dismay at the actions of one’s opponent has become a default tactic. As soon as that infamous curse word had crossed Charlie Angus’ lips on Wednesday, a half dozen Conservative MPs were yelping at the Speaker and pointing in the New Democrat’s direction. But as your kindergarten teacher surely told you, no one appreciates a tattle-tale.
We could say that a higher level of mannerly discourse might eliminate the demand for apology. But we all know such enlightenment is unlikely. And one suspects we’d all secretly prefer politics remain the messy, snarky business that it is (lest CPAC become completely unwatchable).
So perhaps, in the meantime, our elected representatives might just - to put this delicately - suck it up. Yes, the bad men in bad suits can be very mean sometimes. But this ain’t a tennis match. Nor should it ever be so.
--Macleans.ca, March 23, 2007
ProAm Politics with Britney Cherniak
Two screw ups in two days move the needle closer to "am" than "pro"
Lawyer, new media consultant, Dion Blog Campaign Co-Chair, and member of the Internet Task Force of the Liberal Renewal Commission Jason Cherniak has had a rough couple of days. People need to lay off him because he's totally, like, new at all this:
Tuesday's News Release
Liberal blogger: your press release sucked.
Cherniak: Apparently Broadcast News thought it was good enough.
I've been thinking a lot about this, Antonio. You maybe right that it wasn't a great release. However, I've never worked for the party or a politician and I have never been part of a central campaign other than a local campaign. You can laugh all you want as an "expert", but I think I'm doing pretty damn good for a guy who is self-taught.
Wednesday's Harper Video
"Perhaps I went a [sic] too far with this one. With no training in media, I didn't realize how strong an emotional reaction I was creating. The great thing about the Internet is that thousands of people don't need to see an ad on TV before you realize you made a mistake."
Good thing this is a short work week.
Lawyer, new media consultant, Dion Blog Campaign Co-Chair, and member of the Internet Task Force of the Liberal Renewal Commission Jason Cherniak has had a rough couple of days. People need to lay off him because he's totally, like, new at all this:
Tuesday's News Release
Liberal blogger: your press release sucked.
Cherniak: Apparently Broadcast News thought it was good enough.
I've been thinking a lot about this, Antonio. You maybe right that it wasn't a great release. However, I've never worked for the party or a politician and I have never been part of a central campaign other than a local campaign. You can laugh all you want as an "expert", but I think I'm doing pretty damn good for a guy who is self-taught.
Wednesday's Harper Video
"Perhaps I went a [sic] too far with this one. With no training in media, I didn't realize how strong an emotional reaction I was creating. The great thing about the Internet is that thousands of people don't need to see an ad on TV before you realize you made a mistake."
Good thing this is a short work week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)