Sound familiar?

Newt Gingrich, yesterday“He recently vetoed the Keystone pipeline. Now, think about it! He did it to appease left-wing environmental extremists in San Francisco.”

Joe Oliver, September 27. “The NDP has decided to stand against these jobs and ally itself with a few environmental extremists who want to shutter all oil sands development.”




Browse

Sound familiar?

  1. I don’t get it. It’s a pretty standard criticism of the decision to stop the pipeline. It’s like seeing some evil conspiracy because Charles Manson and Bob Rae both like their eggs poached. The horror!

  2. Yeah, that’s pretty damning stuff, all right. Downright eerie how two people can interpret the behaviour of a common opponent similarly.

    • I wonder if Wherry makes these inane comparisons himself or is he posting them at bidding of political party’s war room.

  3. Cons have lifted entire speeches from other rightwingers before….so calling all environmentalists ‘extremists’ is child’s play.

  4. The danger of only generalizing i guess.The implication is that both a president and a political party are allowing themselves to take decisions and formulate policy based solely on the views of a few enviromental extremists. That’s politics but it’s also ludicrous. In Obama’s case he wasn’t prepared to lose an important segment of his base, hardly just a few extremists. There were other people like pissed off landowners and an annoyed Governor to consider too. But really no president is going to pull a stunt like that for a few extremists in SF….there had to be a lot of extremists at the very least.
    Same for the ndp, they are a political party and hardly likely to bet the house on a few extremists. This before you even get into the absurdity of implying opposition is only centered in those few extremists and if they would just go on holiday to Thailand there would be no more opposition. . A few extremists would have hardly likely to have caught the attention of anyone beyond the Green party in that case.
    This sort of boneheaded labelling is standard nowadays. Apart from being idiotic it misses the point that policians are in the business of pandering to as many potential voters as they can. 
    Besides what’s wrong with paying attention to minority opinion? Conservatives have been complaining forever that they couldn’t get a proper look in in this country, yet  here they are demonizing opponents like gleeful, forgetful little school boys when their turn comes to play bully.

    • Aren’t you contradicting yourself? On the one hand, you’re saying it’s wrong to characterize the pipeline decision as an example of listening to an unrepresentative minority. On the other hand, you’re saying there’s nothing wrong with listening to an unrepresentative minority. Which is it?

      By the way, I was listening to well-known American liberal journalist Mark Shields talk about this the other day, and he stated outright that the right has beat the left on the pipeline issue.  The narrative has been about jobs, and also about energy independence. And the left has found itself on the wrong side of both this time around.

  5. The irony is that both the Keystone XL and Gateway pipelines export the jobs that would come with processing the bitumen at source, so that Gingrich is talking about different jobs than Oliver.  Our very centrist “left” in Alberta, including the local New Democrats, want the upgrading done in Alberta.  (They also want the development to proceed slowly, so as to limit social and environmental damage.)  Neither the federal nor the provincial NDs are currently suggesting that the oil/tar sands existing developments be shut down.

  6. Is “in San Francisco” Republican code for “gay”?

  7. I’m also wondering what exactly Wherry found blog-worthy about this.

    • Canadian left-wingers love to associate Conservatives here with GOPers south of the border. He probably thought he’d impress all his knee-jerk buddies. Didn’t quite work out, did it.

Sign in to comment.