'Our interest is in having as many people out to hear our message as we can' - Macleans.ca

‘Our interest is in having as many people out to hear our message as we can’


On the off chance anyone was prevented from attending one of his events, Stephen Harper now apologizes.

“If anybody is kept out of any of our events that’s there to hear our message, we obviously apologize to them,” the Conservative leader said during a campaign stop north of Toronto, in Vaughan … “Our interest is in having as many people out to hear our message as we can.”


‘Our interest is in having as many people out to hear our message as we can’

  1. Damage control…from damage they brought upon themselves, as usual.

    • It takes a strong leader to grit through the pain while he stitches up the hole he just shot in his own foot.

      • Heh….that explains Harper's constant grim appearance.

  2. …and as few people question our message as we can get the RCMP to handle!

  3. He didn't apologize for keeping them out, he's just sorry you couldn't be there to hear him. Just like Will and Kate are sorry we can't all make their wedding.

    • It's one of those fancy apologies where it has the word "apology" in it but does not, in fact, actually apologize for anything at all.

      If this was indeed a real apology, it probably would have referenced the individuals thrown out of the event, and not started with the word "If".

      • Agree with that. I don't see how "if" can ever start a sincere apology.

        Does he somehow doubt that people have been prevented from attending? Is the situation still unclear?

        • It's the tried and true Fox News/ Neocon apology. His Republican handlers suggested it.

  4. Well, actions speak louder than words. Will he back them up by allowing people to attend his events even if they haven't yet promised to vote for him?

  5. So maybe the next Wherry post will be about the problems with the Liberal candidates in Quebec and Alberta.

    Yeah, that`s it—he`s probably just doing more research.

    • Yes, he does seem to be focusing only on the Tories screw ups. Nothing about alleged drunk drivers or candidates who think certain sexual predators shouldn't receive jail time.

      If I was a cynic I might think that he may be a tad bit biased. But I'm sure that isn't the case.

      • On the other hand, Cheryl Gallant remains a candidate, so in that response the CPC gets off pretty light!

    • Don't forget the drunk driver in BC?

      How many problem Liberal candidates does it take before our media start noticing the pattern and establishing the narrative?

      How many events did the CPC eject people from before our media made it a narrative?

    • It's a blog, not the BBC. He can post whatever he damn well wants. Why do people around here seem to be under the impression that bloggers are under some sort of obligation to post an equal number of good and bad things about particular parties/candidates? Do people really not understand what a blog is?

      • No, some don't. They think this is a news report.

  6. "If anybody is kept out … our events … that's there … our message, we obviously apologize to them …Our interest …"

    With this many conditions and references to self — it's not an apology. Also, Harper has not "obviously apologized" for anything. An apology is obvious when it's made, not when it's described in the third person, with conditions.

    Conditions, reversals and insincerity do not an apology make.

    This is damage control and PR flackery.

    • This morning he deflected by saying that 'The Campaign' had apologized. It is apparently separate and apart from him.
      He seems incapable of taking responsibility for anything.

    • I gave the Liberals royal hell for their mangling of the coalition issue on the first day of the election, because their Communications directors thought they could be so clever and not commit to the issue either way.

      But this is almost worse, because it's basic PR. All it would have taken, the first moment the story got out, is a one-liner from Soudas saying "we're deeply concerned about the allegations surfacing from the London event and we'll be working directly with our local coordinators in future events to ensure that this will never happen again. We apologize to Miss Aslam and any others who may have been treated in this manner." Step two would be to get Harper to say the exact same thing the very first time the question was posed to him.

      And then the issue is done, instead of festering like a pus-filled boil for three days.

  7. Where else is that standard adhered to?

  8. As soon as you acquire Macleans and become his boss, you should definitely take a look at his contract and his job description. And his most recent performance review.

    • When you actively condone the biased performance of Wherry, then it reflects poorly on anything you might say in the future.

      • I bet he's facebook friends with Wherry too! Somebody PLEASE find the 50 foot pole!

      • Actively condone? I understand the nature of the medium and its goals. I suspect that you do, too, so if anything here reflects badly on anyone, it's your feigned ignorance making you seem especially ignorant.

  9. And so the next person who gets booted will have this said about them, "Oh, she wasn't here to hear our message"

  10. Can you kindly point me to the rules of Blogging? You should really get on spreading the word on this list, most bloggers seem unaware and are instead practicing free speech. Bastards!

  11. "obviously", indeed!

    First, you obviously lie about lack of space, then you obviously deflect about the role of the RCMP, then when the criticisms keep mounting and evidence of an alleged criminal getting a preferred seat leaks out, then you obviously cast doubt about whether there is anything at all to apologize for, and then, finally, you obviously apologize because you have no other obvious choice. Got it.

  12. Hey Wherry, do you have any intention of doing any real reporting on this story?

    It turns out the turfed teen Awish Aslam was an NDP plant. The whole thing was staged. Just like pretty well everything the opposition has been doing these days, it was staged and fake. http://leoknight.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/as-alwa

    Bourque has reported it. Do you have any intention of reporting the real story?

    Not only that, the others that were turfed are professional agitators: http://blackrod.blogspot.com/2011/04/inventing-sc

    So it's clear what the real story was now. Conservatives don't scan facebook or eject individuals from their rallies. But they are wary to opposition dirty tricks. So they were on to these hijinx, probably due to people familiar with the opposition's tricks, and took appropriate action, removing individuals whose sole reason for being there was to disrupt and attempt to sabotage Conservative rallies.

    • I didn't bother checking out your links. But what is your point?

      Have you ever been to a Liberal rally? I have and I don't care a whit that the CPC plants around me stand up and ask some stupid question like "do you support killing unborn children?" or something to that effect. What's the big deal? In that particular case, Dion simply answered that he and the Liberal Party supported a woman's right to choose and to have access to a safe abortion. So what if the CPC plant and her friends, then said "shame, shame". Big deal. If you want someone to ban abortions in Canada, don't vote Liberal. Perhaps vote for Harper – I don't know, since he is cagey. But Dion told them the LPC position, in case they were illiterate and had never figured that one out. Maybe they learned something.

      The point is if anyone causes a disturbance that interferes with people hearing what they came to hear, they should be led out, but if they just ask stupid questions, well, answer them. Not that Harper takes ANY questions that haven't been vetted in advance anyway, so I really can't see what Harper's problem is.

      But, again, what is your point?

      • The point is quite obvious. In fact you said it yourself. Agitators and plants will do whatever is required to get themselves turfed, either feigning it, or committing vandalism and violence if necessary. Care to recall what the agitators at the G7 summit in Toronto were up to? If you're on the campaign, you don't wait til they've trashed your event, you politely show them the door.

        Here's another point: after all that's been said, in the MSM and be Aslam herself, somehow she failed to mention her extensive NDP activism throughout all of it. Since she's clearly dishonest, from what has been said, ranging from why she was there, her political leanings, and everything else that people have asked her, why on earth should anyone believe anything else about her story? It was a fabrication.

        Of course you didn't bother checking out the links. Why would you? You're not interested in the truth.

    • er… what exactly do you think those links to rightwing blogs "prove"?

      How exactly was it "faked" for Aslam to be kicked out of the rally? And the "others"?

  13. I think a crucial part of this disgraceful effort from Harper that we're missing is about his intended campaign. At no time is he going to regular non-card carrying people, permitting random questions, or being open and responsive to the media beyond the five questions and the 10-metre security barrier.
    Lester Pearson, during the great flag debate, knew that veterans were bloody angry about the prospect of the ol' union jack being replaced by anything. But he walked into a packed Legion during the heat of the debate and gave a tub-thumping speech defending his decision. He faced a lot of heat at that meeting, but likely won a ton of votes. That's courage, that's leadership. Harper is a grass stain on a snake in comparison.

    • Personally, I would've referred to a different kind of stain…

  14. Just in case you forgot Mr. Harper, My Dad was there fighting for our freedom. How dare you intefere with that!
    On D-Day, June 6, 1944, Operation Overlord, the long-awaited invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe, began. On D-Day, the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division landed on Juno Beach. The Canadian assault troops stormed ashore in the face of fierce opposition from German strongholds and mined beach obstacles. The soldiers raced across the wide-open beaches swept with machine gun fire, and stormed the gun positions. In fierce hand-to-hand fighting, they fought their way into the towns of Bernières, Courseulles and St. Aubin and then advanced inland, securing a critical bridgehead for the allied invasion. The victory was a turning point in World War II and led to the liberation of Europe and the defeat of Nazi Germany.
    Fourteen thousand young Canadians stormed Juno Beach on D-Day. The price they paid was high.
    This is a tribute to the men and women who served in the Canadian Army during D-Day and World War II and all conflicts. To these people, we owe the freedom that we take for granted. Let us never forget their sacrifice. God bless them all.