A Conservative mole?

Paul Wells on a breach of the Harper brain trust

Sean Kilpatrick/CP

Sean Kilpatrick/CP

Conservative Party president John Walsh likes to fret that “Liberal attacks and the media” will cause his party some discomfort in the run-up to the next election. But the wretches in the Gallery may not be his only problem.

This page features a photo of fewer than 20 people, and a list of only slightly more than 20 names, and they are the sanctum sanctorum of Conservative organizational power in this land: The Conservative Party  National Council. Rock-ribbed Harperholics all. “A lifelong Conservative,” says one member’s bio. “A long history with Conservative parties,” says another. “A staunch defender of conservative ideas and values,” says a third.

Over the weekend, this group met to consider a pile of documents pertaining to Stephen Harper’s plan to become the first man to win four consecutive elections since Wilfrid Laurier. It was important business for a party that is serious about winning. And on Sunday and Monday the Conservative Party’s business started leaking like a firehose.

There is always the suspicion that the Conservatives — indeed, any party — will leak against themselves, to get people talking about their “plans” and thus to spread their message. That’s sure what it looked like when the Toronto Star brought news, this morning, of a plan to cut capers and hand out whoopie cushions at this month’s Liberal convention in Montreal. (The Star treated this as an extension of a “Conservative … history” of playing pranks at Liberal conventions, but I fondly remember Liberal hijinx at an Ontario Conservative leadership convention a decade ago (hair gel to make fun of Ernie Eves!), and NDP goofs at last autumn’s Conservative convention in Calgary (Senator pension hockey cards!). These games are ubiquitous, and if they do little to hurt the target party they do wonders, perhaps surprisingly, for the perpetrators’ morale.)

But when, a little later, the Star published details of a 70-slide election-readiness PowerPoint deck that our friend Dimitri Soudas presented at the weekend meeting, my smug certainty that the paper was getting played started to waver. The Conservatives have leaked fake memos before. Doug Finley, rest his soul, was fond of the tactic. But you do that to underline your messaging with some free publicity. “‘Dear Fellow Conservatives, I am starting to worry the Liberals are stinkers.’ Put that in a brown envelope and send it to the gallery.” You don’t do that with every detail of your election planning. When I was preparing my recent book, Finley and another senior strategist told me they used to prepare fresh election-readiness plans every several weeks during the minority days. I asked for a copy of one of those seven-year-old memos, for posterity’s sake. I got nowhere. They’re trade secrets. Today one of them is on the Star’s website.

All this is even more true when it comes to the day’s third story, which details the terms of Guy Giorno’s new gig as the Conservatives’ legal advisor. He’s a good choice. He knows the legal thickets surrounding partisan activity well, and understands the difference between what the party might hope and what the rules actually say. But his firm is also advising Nigel Wright, and the leaked memo lays out the details of that thorny relationship, and none of it can be pleasant for Conservatives to read in the newspaper they like least.

So it looks like the Conservatives have an energetic leaker on their hands.

It’s funny that the Liberal convention disruption memo describes the (perennial) Conservative desire to foment “disunity” among Liberals. Encouraging the Liberals in their propensity toward infighting, backstabbing and mutual recrimination is a central Conservative tactical goal. It’s why the Stéphane Dion “this is not fair” TV ads featured Michael Ignatieff, in footage from a Toronto debate, as the then-Liberal leader’s main antagonist. The Harper brain trust wanted Liberals to question one another’s motives.

Tonight the Harper brain trust is wondering about the motives of their own party’s central governing apparatus. That’s a problem for them.




Browse

A Conservative mole?

  1. They need to do what my old boss did when he was trying to discover a ‘graffiti’ mole in the office: give everyone a different colour marker, then it becomes obvious. PMSH and PMO just have to tell trusted people slightly different stories and see which one ends up in TStar.

    • I can’t imagine that working in a political party ( at the top anyway) where trust and loyalty is everything.[so i'm told, never having been there myself]

      • And if the mole is really malicious and catches on to the scheme, think of all the damage that could be done.

  2. Perhaps this is inevitable? Polls are trending down, nothing seems to stick to Trudeau and, especially with the senate move, Harper looks bad by comparison.

    Maybe I am not the only one who thinks it is time for Harper to go.

    • Trudeau has harper boxed in a big corner, right now if harper appoints any new senators, which he has to fill at sometime, he will again look like a partisan for using the senate as a dumping ground for his cronies and bagman, and finally, he(harper)is going to need new legislation passed in the senate between this and the next election, and again he looks bad because on paper, that’s all is left in the senate are Conservative appointments, 57 made by him, while Trudeau no longer has any senators representing the Liberals. Trudeau has in fact inoculated himself from any kind of partisan appointments or partisan corruption that takes place in the senate between this and the 2015 election.

      • i can assure u now and 2015 harper will not under any circumstance appoint a senator lol. he already has the majority no need to add any until reforms are made…

        • Someone is going to have to appoint senators to these seats at sometime, its just trying to find a new way of doing it without looking like your stacking it with party loyalists and bagmen in favor of towing the party line. It seems Harpers guilty pleasures are coming back to haunt him, seems also the dippers are full speed ahead on abolishment. good luck with that one.

          • “Harpers guilty pleasures are coming back to haunt him,” sorry but every single PM who ever appointed a senator is guilty of this

          • also remember harper did not appoint senators for a while, until the coalition of the losers tried to force his hand….i think that was 08 if im not mistaken ???

          • Coalition of governments are legitimate. Only our stupidity has stopped us from accepting that. It shows how ignorant we are of the workings of a democracy.

          • Nobody has ever said that coalition governments are illegitimate in principle. However, they do become illegitimate when you run an entire campaign swearing up down and sideways that you won’t form a coalition government, then attempt to do precisely that once you’ve lost the election in a blatant effort to overturn the democratic will of the people.

          • Like what Harper and McKay did?

          • but this coalition in particular was formed after the 3 losing parties tried to boot out the elected party

          • You are mistaken. He appointed Michael Fortier, a man who has been rejected by voters *every single time* he has come up for an election, both before and since.

            Harper appointed this unelected (unelectable?) man within a month of first gaining power back in 2006. He *announced* he would be appointing this man the day after he was elected in an election where he had made a promise to not appoint any senators who had not been elected by their province.

          • No. He appointed a senator on his first day in office and several before 2008.

        • I don’t know about that. If I was Harper I would appoint a whole bunch of partisan Conservatives to make his case for reform. It would be the finest example of just how meaningless Trudeau’s little stunt was. Not to mention is also has the added benefit of ensuring the Liberals don’t get a majority in the Senate for a very very long time, if ever. Which is good for Conservatism.

          • Oh, I’m sure every Senate vacancy will be filled with uber-Conservative types – bag men, crooks and scoundrels whose duty to the party Harper will want to reward – before the next election is called. Especially if it looks like he’ll lose.

          • What is Conservatism? It is self-preservation with total disregard for others. That’s not the kind of society I desire. 67 percent of Canadians don’t share this self-serving ideology.

          • I like the way you answer your own question so you can segue into a rant about how evil Conservatives are.

            Conservatives do far more to help others than Dippers and Liberals. Conservatives believe that if you want to help, you give to a charity of your choice, not in sending a check to the government so that half the money can disappear into the black hole of the bureaucracy.

            Dippers and Liberals on the other hand, seem to only believe in helping others when they can do so with somebody else’s money. So tell me, who really has a total disregard for others? The people who are giving their own money to help others, or the people who demand more from others so they can appear to be generous?

          • Except all Parties believe in up to 75% tax payer coverage of certain charitable donations like those their supporters pay to them. Charity indeed does begin at home for the parties and especially the Cons, who have just made it even easier for their rich supporters to give them more of our tax payers money. 67% of whom never voted for them.

          • Oh give me a break. You don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore. You’re against giving people a tax break for making a political donation, but you’re FOR just giving the parties money out of general revenues for collecting a vote.

            In other words, you want the parties to receive more tax dollars, and take in less from voluntary donors. Why am I not surprised? It’s always about more handouts for you people. As if government spending is somehow to the solution to all of life’s problems. Good luck getting through life waiting for a handout to come and save you.

          • ” but you’re FOR just giving the parties money out of general revenues for collecting a vote.”

            Go back and show me where I said this.. Go on I’ll wait.

          • You were constantly defending the per-vote subsidy as a requirement for a good democracy. Are you now admitting that the Conservatives were right to scrip the per-vote subsidy?

          • Where did I “constantly defend the per vote subsidy?”

          • In the past, when it was being debated.

          • Another one I’ll have to take your word for, hey?

            Out of the two it certainly is the most democratic way of distributing tax payer’s cash to the MPs or their parties. The tax relief method favours those who donate most and regularly and seems to favour parties; whereas the per-vote subsidy is based on votes gained, which is the foundation of a democracy.

            But today in my view, if we are to have a party based system then why should Parties be subsidised by those who don’t vote for them or don’t vote at all? Why can’t their supporters donate out of the goodness of their heart, not because they get a kick back form the rest of us?
            After all we are constantly being told off for expecting something for nothing, why can’t those who bleat about this the most have their access to the trough cut off too?
            Political parties should do what the rest of us do when we want cash, go out and earn it.

          • conservative do far more to help others – are you insane?

            conservatives help themselves – to taxpayer dollars, to generous subsidies, to special contracts with their friends, to 90,000$ bribes to sitting senators, to 100 million dollar mideast vacations, to billion dollar G20 summits, to ‘temporary’ foreign workers

            Conservatives wrote the book on corruption

          • Oh, I get it – you cant be bothered to try to refute me directly, so you hand-wave and direct me to some site built up in weasel words by conservative spin masters

            see – I used to vote conservative, then Harper’s brigade of absolute ideologues and control freaks took over; real conservatives dont vote Harper, they vote Liberal

            fact

            Edit: I see you attempting to conjure up more nonsense to deflect from the fact that Harper has been disasterous for Canada and our economy. The man has no imagination. Look, you can lie and spin all you want, but facts are facts. Harper has grown government to the largest size in history – including you and the 1499 other paid ‘communications’ trolls – has increased our debt to a record amount and also managed to turn a surplus into a deficit.

            There is nothing you can say that will distract thinking people from Harper’s atrocious record. I recommend other forums, like facebook or maybe Canadian Idol message boards, where the intellectual standard is not so stringent.

          • Those figure are somewhat undercut by the fact that a lot of that charity is in fact to one’s church. Can being charitable to an institution that one receives services from personally be called charity or just looking after one’s own?

          • Well, to be fair, everyone knows that the Conservatives ARE evil. It’s in the party constitution isn’t it?

          • /facepalm

            if only every PMO troll was as full of fail as you

          • How about something from THIS country?

          • No no – I love that Ricky’s trump card is a navel-gazer written by Nixon’s speechwriter on a website owned by Steve Forbes.

            Kinda ties it all together, doesn’t it?

      • Um, there’s still a whole bunch of Liberals in the Senate, despite what Trudeau might wish us to think. If there’s wrong doing found on their part, they’ll still have been Liberals when it happened, and they’ll still be Liberals when it comes out. None of those senators tore up their membership cards when Trudeau made his little show for the media. They were and are Liberals.

        But nice try.

        • to you and me there are Liberals senators..to people who don’t delve further than the first headline..and that’s most people…there aren’t. It’s a nice bubble, all pretty and colourful where people who want to believe Trudeau’s tactics won’t work live. But odds are the views of those of us who actually fleshing this all out are not gonna make one iota of difference at election time.

          • I disagree. I believe Canadians in general aren’t stupid, unlike the Liberals. The Liberals’ have always had success because they’ve successfully lied to voters, but we see more and more in the information age that the more information voters have, the less they vote for the Liberals. Long gone are the days where a Liberal candidate can say one thing in English Canada and the polar opposite in French Canada.

            The same will be found on the Senate file. People realize that if a Senator appointed by a Liberal, who’s a member of the Liberals, and votes along Liberal party lines…. is a Liberal senator, no matter how much Trudeau pleads otherwise. Again, I don’t think most Canadians are stupid. The Liberals do.

          • I can think of at least 25% who apparently don’t have much in the grey matter area.

          • It’s always nice to hear the Liberals confirm that they believe Canadians are stupid. Thanks again for that.

          • The fact that you think only Liberals successfully lie to voters and yet make no mention of Conservatives lying shows your single minded partisanship.

            Also, your definition of Canadian is one who is Conservative because no “real” Canadian would vote Liberal.

            But thanks for confirming that Conservatives are sheep.

          • I’m not claiming to be non-partisan. I never said that other parties don’t lie, I simply pointed out that the Liberals success was because they lie in both official languages, and tell different lies depending on the language. I also never said “real” Canadians don’t vote Liberal.

            Boy, you sure put a lot of words in my mouth without actually addressing a single one of my points.

            “Conservatives are sheep” – that wouldn’t be single minded partisanship, would it?

          • Sooooo it’s an insult to call Canadians stupid but not Liberals? Even though Liberals are Canadians. Probably most Canadians. I don’t think Liberals, or NDP, or CPC or any Canadian of any political stripe are stupid. People that use your logic, well that’s another story.

          • I’m talking about the Liberal Party of Canada, a subset of Canadians that entails about 200 people probably. They are stupid for thinking that the Canadian population in general is stupid. Is that so hard to understand?

            If you think “most Canadians” are Liberals, you obviously haven’t been paying attention to the last 4 elections.

          • No, not Canadians, just Conservatives. Although most don’t prove it every day, unlike you.

          • I believe Canadians in general aren’t stupid, unlike the Liberals. Odd – seems to me it’s the CPC that banks on the stupidity of voters. All the half-truths in their campaign ads; all the things they have been caught lying about… and every time they get caught they just repeat the same lies over and over again because they believe the sound bites will have more sway than the facts.

            The Liberals’ have always had success because they’ve successfully lied to voters, but we see more and more in the information age that the more information voters have, the less they vote for the Liberals. Again, I think you need to substitute CPC wherever the word Liberals appears. Have a look at the polls.

          • Rick, you are capable of thoughtful comments, but you have a childish propensity for playground name calling. Who are you trying to impress?
            You also act as if the Liberals are the only liars in politics. Give your head a shake and take a good look at the Conservatives. Not only do the Conservatives have a generous helping of liars, but they are also rife with trained seals masquerading as MPs.
            I understand why you support them, but if you think they are as pure as the driven snow, then you’re getting into Francien territory.

        • But unlike the Conservative Senators, there is no whip from the Leader’s office telling them what to do. They own their decisions now and as such can’t point to any directive to cover for them.

          The Cons on the other hand are still subject to party discipline and doing as they are told by the PMO.
          I wouldn’t expect a true blue reform-a-Con to appreciate the difference because those faxed talking point don’t actually cover this.

          • Riiiiiiiiight. I’ll be convinced when I see the Liberal senators voting en masse against the Liberal interests. Until then, they’re still Liberal senators.

            Unless I’m supposed to believe that senators appointed by Liberals who are members of the Liberal party of Canada and vote along Liberal party lines are somehow, magically, not Liberals just because Justin Trudeau doesn’t invite them to one particular weekly meeting.

            You Liberals really do believe anything that Trudeau says, no matter how obviously stupid and untrue it is, don’t you?

          • You didn’t read what I said did you?

            Rathgeber votes pretty much along party lines in the House and is a Conservative. but he is an independent and is free to do as he wishes. But now he is accountable for all of that, he can’t say that he is doing as the party directs because he isn’t.

            It doesn’t matter how these folk vote in the Senate, the fact is they are now individually responsible for those votes. I know personal responsibility is something you think applies to others; but even you should be able to understand the implications of this move regard to personal responsibility.
            Trudeau by removing the party whip has basically said “vote how you wish, but it is your decision and you will have to live with it.”
            Harper wouldn’t do that because he appoints people specifically because they do as they are told and look to him for guidance. So a decision made in the House or in the Senate by the Conservatives is made because Harper has decreed it.
            Now if only Trudeau would make every vote in the House an open vote for his MPs, that would be great.

          • The senator’s have always been free to vote as they see fit. Trudeau never had the power to have them removed from the senate, their jobs were never in danger if they voted against the whip.

          • Again you didn’t read what I wrote.
            I never said Trudeau could remove them from the Senate. He could have kicked them from caucus as an individual. But he did remove the excuse any Senator could make that they didn’t want to vote one way, but did so out of party loyalty.
            Individual decisions now are solely the responsibility of the Senator and when the press comes a calling they will have to answer for their votes as individual law makers.

          • he did remove the excuse any Senator could make that they didn’t want to vote one way, but did so out of party loyalty

            No, he didn’t. Each of those senators will continue to vote along party lines, precisely because they are loyal members of the Liberal Party of Canada, and many have been since before Trudeau was even born. Yes, the senators are individually responsible for those votes, but they always have been. Are you saying you don’t believe Conservative senators are individually responsible for the way that they vote?

          • He did remove that excuse, because it no longer applies to Liberals – no caucus, no party whip, no voting on party INSTRUCTIONS.
            Senators should be individually responsible for the way they vote as should MPs; but in reality they are subject to Party discipline and do as they are told.
            Tory Senators still are subject to this, Libs are not.
            Elizabeth Marshall is the government whip in the Senate, but there is now no Liberal whip in the Senate.

          • Hmmmm….. it says here that Liberal Senator Jim Munson was re-elected as the opposition whip for the Liberal senators immediately after Trudeau’s “bold move”. How do you square that circle?

          • Absolutely, but that whip is for the Opposition not the Liberals.

            The opposition for all intents and purposes have only the discipline that each of them decide to give the group, which can change and be dissolved at anytime.

            One whip has authority and power, the other none really and is just someone filling a position that was only created because 2 parties have hijacked our political institutions

          • LOL!!!!! The “opposition” in this case, is made up entirely of Liberals. Yes, the title is the “opposition whip”, not “Liberal whip”, just like the other side’s guy is called “government whip”, not “Conservative whip”.

            The Conservatives also decide individually when they want to tow the party line, or not. Any Conservative senator has the exact same right to vote against party lines as any of the Liberal senators do.

            Go ahead, keep putting lipstick on this pig. You’re just painting the pig Liberal red.

          • No you appear too dim to actually see the difference that releasing the Liberals from the discipline of Liberal Leader makes.
            If it is no big deal why won’t Harper do likewise?

          • the PMO spin monkeys are getting desperate, I see

            good. soon time to look for a real job, Rick

          • I have a real job, thank you very much. But thanks for your idiotic and pointless comment, I guess.

          • a ‘real’ job is not being paid by the PMO to lie to Canadians in public forums

            get a real job, parasite

          • Listen to harebell.You still don’t understand what she is
            saying.It’s Canadians like you,the Cons adore.Another
            dummy in their corner.

      • Harper doesn’t give a damn on how the public sees things. As long as he gets to perpetuate the rule of the Conservatives, he will do whatever it takes. He is changing laws to give his party more control of the election – overspending will be easier, enforcement will be non-existent, rake in more donations even with fewer donors, create 30 conservative-friendly ridings. If he fails to hang on to power, the Conservative-controlled Senate will make life hard for the elected government.

        • he is a pathetic middle manager and master showman who has manipulated the admittedly not bright lights of the ‘right’

          Harper ‘conservatives’ are about as conservative as fluorescent paint on a DeLorean in the middle of a pastoral village.

          Real conservatives vote Liberal, ironically.

        • The remaining Conservative senators aren’t as crazy as the average Harperite. Hopefully, they’ll do their job and represent Canada, not the CPC (which may not even be a registered party in a few years).

  3. M I 6 say it with me, M I 6 it sounds nice doesn’t it?

  4. Poor Steve – he really does come across as a creep. Caterwauling songs which make all listeners cringe, wearing much too much make-up for a ‘real man’ and , well, we won’t get into the absolutely stiff rug on his pate or his ever-expanding gut.
    Forgetting all of the above, he has proven himself to be a wanna-be dictator, leaning towards imperialism. This country has diminished horribly under his traitorous watch and will be will rid of him and his sheep-like followers come 2015.
    Justin Trudeau may not appeal to the old grey men, but he sure promises hope and a better future than these stodgy old men who represent the Reform/Alliance old boys’ club.

    • Then do something. Volunteer, donate, ….
      Read the TS article. It is truly frightening. These are motivated and ruthless extremists convinced they can manipulate a large enough minority of electors into a majority government. With a little help from state sanctioned voter suppression, of course.

      • I do and I have. Are you doing something too

        • Indeed.

      • He’s already got a majority. Since May 2011 now.

        • You’ve still got to reapply every four years or so. Unless they’ve got a secret strategy for that little inconvenience as well.

          • Back in the day I had a twenty dollar bet going that Malroney was going to try to stay in office by virtue of the “apprehended ” insurrection clause.

    • Justin Trudeau is the wanna-be dictator. He’s on record saying how much he admires China’s dictatorship. Oh, and did you notice how he didn’t consult with any of his MPs or when he put on his little Senate show? Doesn’t that come off as a little, um, dictatorial?

      • Hyperbole scarcely becomes you. You need to look a little further down the House benches, just below the clapping seals to the real autocrats.

      • Actually his MPs came to him with the idea. Quit while you’re behind.

      • get a real job, PMO clown

        get off the gravy train

    • While not as pretty a face and certainly doesn’t go to the same hair stylist, Mulcair makes up for lack of flash with competency. It works, Just in should try it some time. Personally, I’d like to see both combine to send CRAP down to a defeat of Mulroneyesque proportions, but I’d accept a permanent exile to the back-benches.

  5. Well, I suppose the ‘news’ here is the fact that the Conservative Party appears to have an ‘energetic leaker’… because what’s been leaked shouldn’t be at all surprising to anyone. They’re going to tout a ‘strong, stable Conservative government’? You don’t say! They’re going to portray Trudeau as a flake and a lightweight? Really! They’re going to try to exploit social media? Revolutionary!

    • Have you read the TS article? The information included is very in depth including “mining” info from non-CPC websites to target potential supporters. Not even sure if this kind of stuff is legal.

      • Yeah, I read it, and nothing I read surprised me. They’re basically doing the same things (or same kinds of things) they’ve been doing for years. You can love it, or you can hate it, but none of these tactics are coming from out of left (right?) field. I’d be much more interested to see a secret Liberal memo outlining how they plan to counter.

        • Whoopie cushion deflators on 24/7 standby…that’s my job. Don’t tell anyone though. Good eh!

        • What’s surprising is the depth of detail. It’s one thing to say “we’ll use social media” it’s quite another to see a document where they outline the mechanics of using “friendly” non-CPC websites to mine information about people without their knowledge. It would appear they are trying to micro-target and even smaller minority than last election and leverage it into another majority.

          • Everyone with a computer and access to the internet can read comments. What’s the big deal. As if other parties don’t keep on eye on what goes on social media.

          • You clearly have no idea how marketing works on the internet. None of this is even remotely surprising. The surprise might be that the document was leaked, but that’s about it. Every party is doing this stuff, just the Conservatives are better. Why would they stop using a tactic that’s obviously been successful for them?

          • There’s “better” and there’s “unethical” and there’s “illegal”. The Cons do not see the difference.

          • It’s all one and the same to Rick…until the other guy does it that is.

          • It’s surprising (the amount of detail), but it’s not shocking. Using social media, as described in the document, is not a shock or an “out of left field” tactic. The shock is the fact that this was leaked in the first place. That is the shock. Not the contents themselves.

        • My job is to control the crowd wanting the rolling papers. We’d be loathe to knock them down (especially Jason Kenney) in our enthusiasm for the collector’s item.

          • I heard that if you get 10 Trudeau rolling papers, you could trade them in for a Rob Ford crack pipe.

          • Glass pipes with the picture of Rob and Steve on it!

          • What’s it take to get in one of his videos i wonder?

          • But seriously, you have wonder how far they might be willing to go to destroy Trudeau’s reputation and keep power.

          • Just watch them.

      • I think Harper is wonderful and hope he gets an historic fourth term. As a wealthy father or stay at home wife of same I look forward to an income splitting scheme that will benefit my family without also giving benefits to pesky poor families – FINALLY I will be rewarded for MY/MY SPOUSE’S work and natural deservingness. i would also like to drop bombs on a small unstable country, preferably a muslim one, and hope Harper will follow such a course!

        If any CPC observers are out there, please contact me and send me secret information! I can be trusted!

        • I agree with your entire first paragraph! Woot woot2015!!!!!!

        • Can you believe the gall of white males, wanting to keep some of their own hard earned money to provide a better life for their families? What evil, evil people they are.

          • Sometimes you are So Right.

          • Yabut think of the context…er, it’s Rick…best not

          • Im a white male – you dont speak for me, anarchist-capitalist

      • Putting “mining” in scare quotes doesn’t make it any different than mining without scare quotes. It’s a common marketing tactic, everybody does it. Are you dumb enough to think that everything you “Like” on Facebook was somehow private to you? Just because your uninformed about something, doesn’t make it illegal. Ask Trudeau about all his fake Twitter followers.

        • I’ll bet CRAP doesn’t do well in the “likes” department.

      • This is the one I’m amazed isn’t getting more play. This is spying on your base, in particular. This is gathering IP addresses and somehow turning them into names and addresses. How does one do that, I wonder, while staying on the right side of the law? Are all Conservative supporting non-Conservative members terrorists now?

        • I don’t know much about these things, but it seems like a rather labour-intensive and expensive enterprise. Is the data you’d end up with worth the time and treasure you expended to gather it?

          • Labour intensive for sure. Expensive? When you have the resources of the Government to call on? Hahahahaha.

        • It’s not rocket science. It’s Internet Marketing 101. You don’t need a persons IP address of home address to market to them. Do you see those Google Ads on the side of this site? Do you think they’re generated randomly? I assure you they’re not. There’s nothing even remotely illegal about it. The Liberals are using the exact same tactics, same with the NDP.

          • Oh, those ads I automatically ignore? Carry on then.

          • Sorry, for a second there I thought you actually wanted to learn something. Pardon me for spoiling an uneducated meaningless rant.

          • you seem angry Rick

            is it because you know the government providing you with a nice paycheque for posting lies all day is going down, saying the hard goodbye?

          • my, arent you the happy little apologist

            guess whatever you need to do to keep money coming in, but how low can you go as to be paid to be a spin monkey for the PMO?

            shameless

    • Agreed the takeaway at the moment is there’s nothing worth taking away, complete dearth of imagination.

    • I think the “exploit Laureen” part of the strategy is a surprise to most people because 1) she has no charisma 2) it is so obviously a desperate reaction to the fact that no intelligent Canadian can stand Stephen that it could not possibly help them and 3) everyone thought they were separated, so this is just going to stir up a whole bunch of uncomfortable questions for the Harpers.

  6. Now who sounds paranoid? Paul, you spent too much time with Harper when you were writing that book. :)

    • CHrist that book is super boring, I’ve spent six weeks reading six pages zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      • You know it is possible to disagree with someone’s pov without making such a blatantly partisan spectacle of yourself. You probably couldn’t even round up six partisan Liberal journos or bloggers in the country who thought that book was zzzzzzzzzzzzz making.

        Edit: I was off a bit. That’s 4 who didn’t like Paul’s book…well three really since one of them is Omen and it’s doubtful he reads books.
        Surprised more aren’t sticking up for PWs book though.

        • You know it is possible to disagree with someone’s pov without making
          such a blatantly partisan spectacle of yourself. You probably couldn’t
          even round up six partisan Liberal journos or bloggers in the country
          who thought that book was zzzzzzzzzzzzz making.

          • You are an idiot , as per usual!

        • You know it is possible to disagree with someone’s pov without making such a blatantly partisan spectacle of yourself

          The pot calling the kettle black.

          • Hmmm, using your yardstick that’d make you a sort of rather obvious hypocrite too, right, Ricky? I was defending Well’s book, what’s your excuse…oh, you don’t like me. That’s a relief to know, but hardly a revelation.

          • I’ve never denied my partisanship. You’re constantly accusing others of being partisan, as if it’s some slur, while ignoring the fact that you and your partisan Liberal compatriots here are as partisan as anybody. You’re not fooling anyone.

            So no, I’m not being hypocritical, because I’m not suggesting that partisanship is a bad thing, you are, while being completely partisan.

          • You really are in denial, aren’t you? And an idiot, but that’s not unusual at all.

            I doubt you could find two comments in the last 5 years that would back up that assertion that you’ve always been up front with your partisanship…that’s despite the zillion thumbs down you’ve received in the meanwhile.
            As i pointed out i was attacking Nadine for her silly comment on Well’s book, not for being partisan per se. A point i wouldn’t have thought too nuanced even for you; guess i was wrong there.

          • You’re not making any sense, again.

            Two comments in the last 5 years that suggest I’m up front with being partisan? Well, there’s the one that you’re replying to, and here’s another one from today: http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/02/10/a-conservative-mole/#comment-1240023467

            Here’s another, also from today: http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/02/10/a-conservative-mole/#comment-1239920353

            Wait, one more from today! http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/02/10/a-conservative-mole/#comment-1239571666

            So there’s 4 in the last 12 hours. I didn’t need to go back 5 years, or even 5 days.

            Thanks for coming out, and thanks for being a thumb counter. It proves what a thoughtless troll you really are.

          • That’s pretty funny there NotRick. I only had to look at the first example of your openly partisan commentary.

            “You also act as if the Liberals are the only liars in politics. Give your head a shake and take a good look at the Conservatives.”

            This is what i’m talking about dim wit. As Pick points out, you never criticize your team, and yet you never acknowledge that you are a partisan. I can’t be bothered to look at any of your other examples. It’s pretty well obvious to everyone here – except you for some reason.
            There is nothing wrong with being partisan if you can back it up, and offer reasoned criticism of your side from time to time. You OTOH are a full time troll, who has the chutzpa to call others out for being trolls. Your capacity for self delusion appears to be bottom less.
            I’ll make you a deal, you start commenting in a balanced way, i’ll quit with the insults and make more of an effort to see it your way some of the time. I can’t say fairer than that.
            My natural cynicism leads me to conclude you can’t pull it off. Prove me wrong.

          • Well, you’re an idiot, so I’m not surprised you missed the important sentences, which were: “I don’t know what you guys expect of us conservative types“. You see, that’s an admission of partisanship.

            Further on in the same comment:

            I don’t see any of the Liberal partisans here criticizing any of Trudeau’s obvious gaffe’s, all I see is idiotic spin trying to justify him saying things like he has respect for the Chinese form of dictatorship. I won’t deny that sometimes I’m guilty of the same, however.

            You see what I did there? I admitted that I too am sometimes guilty of being a partisan spinster.

            Now go along, and read the rest of them and see if you can read with a bit of comprehension.

            PS. Calling someone else a “dim wit” while demonstrating your inability to read…. not very bright.

          • Still can’t be bothered, thx anyway. Let’s just say it happens once in a blue moon. My bad luck you admitted to something today.
            I take it you’re refusing my olive branch? Fair enough, i’d be denying myself a fair bit of amusement pointing up your inconsistencies, even if it does get boring after a while. Game on then!

      • Nadine, shame on you! As if anyone with a brain would believe that you would pick up a book about Stephen Harper! That is about as believable as Rick Omen reading a biography of Justin Trudeau. Try to make your derogatory comments at least plausible.

  7. Hmmm and we’re not that far away from March 15 either. Now who has a ‘lean and hungry’ look?

    • Yon Jason “Cassius” Kenny

      • LOL I dunno about the lean part, but he’s certainly ‘hungry’….however he was outted awhile back. Libs and Dips wouldn’t care, but SoCons probably will.

    • I suppose we could hope for a re-enactment of the 15th but since these penny banishing clowns have no viable opposition I’d be less surprised to see a return of Brian Malroney on say, the 17th.

  8. Wonder why the leaker leaked to the star and not directly and in confidence to the LPC? I suppose it is possible it went to the Liberals first and then to the star.
    Getting a little ahead of myself, but that would be a very clever move by the libs. It sends a message to the public – these guys are sleazy. And it sends a message of disunity to conservatives. It might even trigger a witch hunt. Could the pupil be becoming rapidly the master?

    • You watch too much tv. Your brain is on overload. LOL. Conspiracy here there and everywhere.

      • Are u the mole Francien? Better watch out Csec is taping this. They can find you even down under.

    • So the Liberals leak a confidential Conservative document to the press, and you think it makes the Conservatives look sleazy? Ya, nothing sleazy at all about sending anonymous brown envelopes about your opponents to newspapers. Nothing. At. All.

      • Who sent the doc in the first place? What sort of things did it recommend doing to the Liberals?[ it may have escaped your keen eye by i was speculating as to whether the libs had it first. All we know is that the star received it]
        And you think the libs not returning the doc unopened is the sleaziest part of the story…yeessh..how do you manage to reach such bizarre judgements, and consistently too?

  9. We’re thinking it’s Dimmy’s ex-wife who hacked his email….

    Dimmy’s new g/f and he mailed out Christmas cards with all their kids on it; how would that not enrage the ex’s? Esp. since they started their affair while both married.

    p.s. Does the Christian Alliance know about all this just btw?

  10. Interesting that one of the leaked Conservative plans says they want to promote Harper’s wife in 2015. Is this because they want to promote a happy family image?

    • All the hipsters have beards. Maybe Harper is going after the youth vote.

    • Ray Novak: Steve
      Harper’s Closet Confidant

      He used to live above Steve Harper’s garage. Now he’s the second most powerful man in Ottawa.

      “Ray is effectively the Prime Minister’s closest confidant,”
      enthuses one government official. “Not only as a member of his staff, but as a
      personal and intimate member of the Prime Minister’s life.”

      http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/20/who-knows-what-harper-is-really-thinking-ray-novak/

      -00-

      • intimate eh?

        I wonder why…could we have our first closeted Prime Minister?

    • She’s a nice, likable lady. And why wouldn’t they want to promote a happy family image? The Conservatives are clearly the only party in Canada that cares about families. The NDP just want to tax families to death, while the Liberals actually think that people who get married and have kids are evil because they want to keep their hard earned money and not throw it all at big government social programs. The fact that a paid Liberal troll like yourself is suggesting promoting a family image is a bad thing is proof.

      • I hate to even come close to touching on this subject, that everyone (quite rightly, imho) tiptoes around, but if you’re going to rhetorically accuse the NDP of wanting to kill families, and the Liberals of thinking that married parents are evil, then I’ll simply say that if you think about it, there’s at least one good reason why promoting a happy family image could end up being problematic for a politician.

        • They must have her totally on board for this coming ordeal, but she looks plain miserable in those photo ops on foreign trips.

          • My dad keeps saying Laureen looks miserable too. Personally I think pulling out the wife card seems desperate. Like public karaoke of Beatles songs.

            If CPC insists on taking that route, I do believe the beautiful and telegenic Sophie Gregoire is about to bring her third adorable child into this world in a month or so. I don’t think the used-to-be-smiley Laureen will win a battle of political wives, if indeed we have come to that. I really hope we haven’t come to that.

          • Oh please do!!!!! Nothing would doom the Liberals more than having those two air-heads gallivanting around the country trying to drum up votes based entirely on their looks.

          • Intense, in depth relationship scrutiny required in the case of both couples.

          • Why? Thats all Harper does – think of his 100 million dollar vacation in Israel – meanwhile, he is closing PTSD and search & rescue centres

      • its funny coming from someone who really does work for the PMO

        you smell desperate – the reek of fear is in the air

        good – you and the rest of the gang of crooks is finished – time for a real job, lying clown

        BTW – Harpers wife left him for another woman. Just sayin

    • Smacks of trying to save the furniture, as they say en français.

      The CPC braintrust increasingly are coming to the conclusion that Stephen Harper won’t be able to close the deal in 2015 with him alone. It is reminiscent of Mulroney dragging his attractive just-about adult daughter around with him to PC events in the early 90′s. But he at least was smart enough to see the writing on the wall.

      • Ya but you haven’t told us who did it!

        • Who did what?

          Am I missing something here . . .

          • The leak, silly billy..[whisper]

    • She seems a pleasant enough woman … albeit a total walking fashion crime … but remember … she married Harper … and continues to remain married to him … so obviously suffers from some tragic flaw.

      • Maybe she lost a wager

    • funny particularly because Canadians would love to hear about Laureen;s relationship with the female RCMP officer

      which is practically an open secret in Ottawa – whats with that anyway? worried Harper looks less a man because his wife left him for a woman?

      (theyre right, no wonder they keep a lid on it)

  11. Heh. I bet they call an election before Oct 2015.

    • Surely you jest.. why.. they even passed a law against that.

      • I can see why you’d be confused.

        The Tories ACTED as though they passed a law against that. They certainly want you to THINK that they passed a law against that. However, they never actually passed a law against that.

        • No, but they’ll fully expect other parties to honour their non law once their out of office…cue the outrage.

      • They’ve broken it before.

  12. All that matters is the attack ads, the debate, and the riding-by-riding math. Not strategy, not records, not platforms, none of that BS. It’s entirely and 100% about the public image and the voting system.

  13. Well, maybe even some Conservative militants are seeing the light: they might be partisan, yes, but some of the them probably consider Harper and his gang have gone too far. High jacking democracy makes most people uncomfortable, and even the most militants in the Tory ranks might have had enough.
    And Canadians too have had enough of the Karl Rove school of divisive politics. This is NOT what Canada is all about.

  14. A conservative with a conscience? More likely the leaks are part of the strategy. If it were a real leak, they would have called in the RCMP by now.

  15. I like the way they’re all wearing poppies in this picture. Like these guys give a rat’s ass about veterans. All image, no substance, all smoke and mirrors, zero humanity.

    • Of course not. Conservatives hate everybody and everything, including Conservatives. They only wear the poppy because they think it’s a symbol for cocaine.

      • Well then, they are either confused (unsurprising) or being disingenuous (even less so). Given that eradication of the poppy crop was a stated component of the Allied Afghan mission, you’d think they’d understand the profitability of the opium trade to the region. After all, the number of hooked vets is maybe, kinda, sorta an issue (beyond all the others, like PTSD or a lost limb or three).

        But, ah well, seems they’d rather eradicate the benefits ( Beyond the pittance the cheap plastic poppies at home bring).and services of any recipients who fought there. All while sanctimoniously wearing such, of course.

      • Well you do drink in the morning

  16. Leaks are the new black! Please remember that if not for the leaks to Robert Fife last year, Canadians would know nothing about the PMO/Duffy/Wright fiasco. Loose lips sink ships — the ships get too leaky!

    • Makes one wonder if it’s the same source. Of course if it’s not, that’s even worse for the CPC… more than one traitor in their midst.

    • Or how about they’re not leaks, they are the new PMO press releases from the kids in short pants. No one else thinks it is strange that the conservatives were ready to take apart Parliament Hill brick by brick to find Vikileaks, but not a peep has been made about a leak from the PMO? No investigation, no RCMP, no threats that they would search high and low for the perpetrator, especially since the PMO is supposed to be uber secure, given that national security stuff goes through there? And now, again, on budget day, here we are talking about stuff we already knew (except maybe that Wrights lawyer is also being paid $14/k per month by the CPC – I wonder if Wright knew that?) instead of the budget. Given the reformers penchant for hiding their nasty plans in budgets, my money is on this is just another deflection.

      Leaks are the new pandas.

      • To be fair, there is no indication whatsoever that Giorno himself is representing Mr. Wright (is there?). Faskens, the firm wherein he is a partner (f/c?), however, does.

        • But it kind of tells you the fix is in re the Duffy Wright affair. Wright won’t be talking. He’ll take the hit and protect the Boss.

    • Maybe they should go after the guy who said “I got to take a leak” as he left in the middle of the meeting carrying his briefcase, of course.

  17. How come these moles and leakers don’t upload this stuff to the Pirate Bay or pass it on to Wikileaks, so a guy like me (or you) could just check it out for themselves sans the opinions of the particular media outfit telling us about it? Not that I have anything against these opinions but I like to form my own and compare….
    So let’s get that link up. I want to see this presentation myself.

Sign in to comment.