32

The UnCanadian Activities Committee


 

In case you were worried that this government was feeling chastened by the events of these last two weeks, CBC aired a clip last night of Pierre Poilievre, the Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary, referring to the coalition earlier in the day as both “undemocratic” and “unCanadian.”

In other news, the Prime Minister placed a call last night to Michael Ignatieff, the prospective leader of that undemocratic, unCanadian coalition. Sources suggest Mr. Harper sought to personally register his objection to Mr. Ignatieff’s undemocratic, unCanadian activities. Any suggestion that the Prime Minister would be interested in working constructively with an undemocratic, unCanadian scoundrel such as Michael Ignatieff is false, misleading and probably also unCanadian.


 

The UnCanadian Activities Committee

  1. I listened to Ignatieff on The Current this morning. His version of the conversation with Harper suggested that Harper asked for Ignatieff’s input for the upcoming budget (i.e., “tell me what your demands are to make it passable”), and that Ignatieff flatly refused to get drawn in that way (show us first, and we’ll let know when it’s put to a vote).

  2. “Chastened” by events of the past week

    You mean taking a stand on wildly popular positions that resonates with everyday Canadians (getting rid of direct funding to parties),

    against a coalition that the vast majority of Canadians staunchly dissapproved of?

    You mean those events?

    The same events that brought the CPC to historic highs in public support and dropped the Libs support to the realm of political disaster?

    One could argue that only a highly partisan leftist, blinded by their ideology and corresponding visceral dislike of one’s political opponent, would conclude that the events of last week would cause the CPC to be “chastened”.

    One would also be correct in so arguing.

  3. Well kody, if you agree with your own argument, then that’s good enough for me.

  4. BTW, commenters on the right are having a fabulous time watching the left leaning media ignore the latest polls (as well as the corresponding specific examples of public rage against the coalition and public displays of support for Harper).

    “News” organizations ignoring reality because they don’t like the results of that reality – why its sounds like a recipe for disaster to an entity who’s stock in trade is providing the public with all the unvarnished facts.

    Did I mention the downfall of the Tribune Co., the L.A.Times along with the NY Times (papers notorious for not printing what they don’t like politically) lately? Tribune going bankrupt and the NYT mortgaging its landholdings to keep its “news” organization [such as it is] afloat. Ouch.

  5. Just let him be Sean. He wants us to think last week was some kind of shining moment for Harper and his minions. I wonder if he even believes his own BS?

  6. Kody – This kind of shit worked for Karl Rove…for a while. Then it kind of blew up in the Neocons’s faces didn’t it? And also this is Canada. Like 70% of us would have voted for Obama if we had the chance. So keep it up dude. It will only make it sweeter when you get your asses soundly kicked.

  7. Well the “undemocratic” and “unCanadian” appointed senate is due to get well stocked with Conservatives by the end of the year.

    Once upon a time, Harper would never do such a thing because his base would rally and foam at the mouth over such actions. But much like the minority-must-rule-over-the-majority movement, I suspect there are no tenants left of the Conservative base that Harper can’t sellout quickly enough.

  8. Yes Sean,

    it’s just me in my little bubble. The last spate of polls were not real. In fact I created them in my basement (with a team of dastardly conservative operatives that is).

    One more note to my left leaning friends here:

    Your partners in the media are doing you no favours. The aging actress who’s talents have left her years ago, does not need someone telling her she’s marvelous and excitedly applauding her to go on stage. It doesn’t make the actress any more appealing, it only slightly delays the inevitable and makes the inevitable far far worse when it comes.

    There are a number of reasons why the Liberals fail to renew, and instead try to rush back to power – but an important one is that their cheerleaders in the media keep telling them they’re fabulous and stageworthy. Don’t blame them though, they can’t help it. They’ve grown up loving the actress and can’t see her flaws.

  9. Dije,

    Yes, much better for Harper to continue to appoint Liberals so that the already overwhelming number of Liberals in that chamber get even more one sided.

    Because as we know, Canadians today favour the Liberal party over the CPC by a margin of over 5 or 6 to 1 and that chamber must reflect the will of Canadians, after all.

  10. Jean,

    after this comment I will no longer respond, as your name calling is contemptable (though sadly typical),

    but perhaps you havent been paying attention, but Obama’s appointments/selections and policies as of late appear to largely mirror Bush’s. In terms of comparative ideology, one could argue the Obama elect (as opposed to Obama the far left saviour in the primaries) is positioned to the right of the CPC.

  11. kody,

    Agreed about the polls. The coalition is a non-starter with many/most Canadians.

    But if you don’t think Harper ought to be minimally chastened and cautious at this point, I’d suggest you’re indulging in a bit of fantasy yourself.

    Dion is gone. The free ride Harper has enjoyed is over. Without endorsing Ignatieff, I think we can agree that he’s going to be a stronger presence – one that cannot so easily be minimized with not-a-leader rhetoric.

  12. Oh! My name-calling is contemptible! I have wounded the delicate sensibilities of a member of the puffin patrol. Suddenly attacks and name-calling are MEAN and BENEATH YOU. Ha! Get used to getting smacked around Dick Cheney. There’s plenty more where this came from.

  13. Kody,

    So long — and don’t trip over your tongue on the way out.

  14. Cripes, Aaron, the Liberal party can defend itself, it doesn’t need you and 95% of the media defending them every time a junior cabinet secretary says something that nobody even paid attention to in the first place. I know we call you an outright Liberal often, but this one is out of bounds even by your standards.

    A coalition that contains 50 MPs who want to break up Canada into non-contiguous pieces is, by definition, un-Canadian. A surprise coalition in which the leader repeatedly denied during the election he would form a coalition is, by definition, undemocratic. Socialists need to understand there are meaningful consequences, such as being affixed fair and accurate labels that they may not be comfortable with, for their actions, such as forming a coalition with MPs dedicated to the breakup of Canada. That’s how we roll in “real” Canada.

    It’s not that you are hurting our feelings by being a Liberal shill, it’s more a question of aesthetics. It’s a very ugly spectacle watching the corporate media play footsies with the socialist bloc that wants to cause such massive and irreparable damage to my nation’s economy and budget; I believe the Germans call this a gammelfleischparty, or “spoiled meat party” . Be prettier!

  15. “so long”

    folks seem to be confused with the notion of not elevating that which deserves to remain in the gutter,

    with succumbing to political shout downs.

    Oh, my no, no, no. I’ll be here to comment. Winning arguements with logic, facts, and yes dry wit, for some time to come. If others choose to make their points by childish insults that’s their perrogative.

    We all know that name calling and insults are extremely effective rhetorical tools and are a sure sign one is winning and argument, so by all means keep up the good work. I’m sure your “team” is proud of you.

  16. ” I’ll be here to comment. Winning arguements with logic, facts, and yes dry wit, for some time to come”

    Won’t that be a pleasant change!

  17. I get your point Kody: the latest poll had the Tories way up and the media did not report it etc etc etc.
    But I have to ask you: in the context of the polling and how the questions were asked (coalition etc.) and all the protests do you really think that the numbers are levels of support for Harper, or perhaps they show opposition to the proposed coalition?
    Talking to people I don’t get the feeling (very scientific, I know) that people are pro-Harper per-se. They just don’t like the idea of the govt. changing in this manner way. When asked if they support the govt. they say yes, but not because they are suddenly going to vote Tory. They just are pro-status-quo. That doesn’t suddenly mean Harper is popular. Just that he happens to be the status-que.
    I think that when most people (and media) look at the numbers and what is going on they get that. The polls don’t necessarily suggest that 49% of the population is about to vote Tory just that that many people don’t want change. Maybe that explains why you saw the discussion in the media regarding the polling and protests saying “Canada hates coalition” instead of “Canada loves Harper now.”
    Construct this as media bias if you want. But I would have to disagree.

  18. I’m concerned that this youthful asshat may be giving people the wrong impression of the CPC as it enters the renewed and renovated new era of cooperation with the opposition parties.

    That would be a shame, as it could lead to support for the replacement of Harper’s minority government by an undemocratic government supported by the majority of elected MPs, who are unCanadian.

  19. “the Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary, referring to the coalition earlier in the day as both “undemocratic” and “unCanadian.”

    I don’t agree with any side deciding who/what is Canadian but the Libs have been pulling this kind of thing for years. It’s always Canadians support …. whatever the latest policy the Libs are trying to sell with the implication being that you aren’t a Canadian, or you’re a bad Canadian, if you don’t support the Kelowna Accord or somesuch. And when a coalition has a party dedicated to the break up of the country, it isn’t exactly a pro-Canada coalition.

    And whether the coalition is democratic or not, it depends on what democratic means.

  20. Is there anything more important than winning to partisans? It seems hard to believe that an even-remotely decent human being would not feel bad about single-handedly bringing Canadian political dialogue deeper into the gutter than it already is when they only payoff is ‘good polling numbers.’ Of course I am naive and no one has ever accused the likes of Poilievre of being remotely decent human beings.

  21. Meanwhile, back in the world and in the headlines :-

    – Canada trails the world ( except Saudi Arabia ) in climate change policy

    – Canada ranks last in child care services among 25 developed countries

    – Corporate welfare costs $182B over last 12 years, * Warning* Fraser Institute report, apply salt to taste

    – Supreme court to rule ( Thursday) on legality of using EI surplus to fund general account spending

  22. The EI ruling is in !!

  23. Since we seem to be talking about polls here (didn’t Harper say that he wouldn’t rule by the polls?) how come Kody hasn’t mentioned the poll, before Ignatieff got the leadership, that having him as leader would put the Liberals within 5 points of the Conservatives and severely cut into Harper’s numbers?

    While we’re at it, perhaps we could use a poll about how Canadians feel about a PM appointing unelected senators under a prorogation procured to avoid a confidence vote?

  24. Oh, well….

  25. The public doesn’t really know Iggy, but it is safe to say that the more he speaks the less they will think of him. The man suffers from “foot-in-mouth” disease and reminds me of Paul Martin in that his answer to a direct question is usually to talk in circles and avoid directly answering a question altogether. O, and did I mention he appears to be trying the Paul Martin ideology of being all things to all people, everything is a top priority.

  26. Don’t worry. We can see the priorities shining thru — good little CON first of all, Canadian second.
    Those terrible separatists whom Harper worked with eagerly before are not to be trusted unless they are working with Harper… And the Canadian parliamentary system is no place for parties to vote and decide the will of the people.
    Mob rule (and western separatism) is in!

  27. The way I see it, whenever those “separatistes” travel abroad, they have Canadian passports, their families have been in Canada for a few centuries, and their constituents who voted for them drink Molson & watch hockey. Maybe I’m just politically immature, but that sounds Canadian to me.

    I have a strong suspicion that very few Bloquistes are actual true separatistes. It’s rather more likely they are trying to get the best possible deal for their constituents & keep themselves elected by playing on the insecurities & regional prejudices of their supporters. I’m sorry, but in politics, that makes them very Canadian.

  28. In other news, the Prime Minister placed a call last night to Michael Ignatieff, the prospective leader of that undemocratic, unCanadian coalition. Sources suggest Mr. Harper sought to personally register his objection to Mr. Ignatieff’s undemocratic, unCanadian activities. Any suggestion that the Prime Minister would be interested in working constructively with an undemocratic, unCanadian scoundrel such as Michael Ignatieff is false, misleading and probably also unCanadian.

    Didn’t Ignatieff himself say in his press conference that Harper called in the spirit of cooperation? If he’d called to be an ass don’t you think Ignatieff would have said so? What was Harper supposed to do, kneel and profess fealty to King Iggy?

    And if Harper hadn’t called, let me guess…you’d slag him for remaining in his ivory tower and not wanting to work on the budget in the spirit of cooperation with the opposition. And probably a hundred other things.

    If you and Kady and the others here other than Coyne and Wells want to shill for the Liberals on your blogs, it’s your house. But for the benefit of your readers, and for Macleans’ credibility as a balanced, non partisan news magazine, at least be honest and up front about it. Stop pretending to be a non-partisan commentator when it’s clear that your HDS is overriding your ability to be objective.

    I’ve been one of the most vocal critics here of yourself and Kady for bias, but believe it or not, it’s not because you are partisan; it’s because you are partisan while pretending, in the absense of any such declaration, to be non partisan. In the months that I’ve been reading here, I don’t think I’ve ever seen either of you criticze the Liberals for anything. And it’s not like you haven’t had the opportunity or reason to. You just don’t.

    The day you identify yourselves as partisan will be the end of my criticism of your bias, because at least you will be honest about where you are coming from. Stephen Taylor’s posts here fully disclose his partisan interest. It’s an example that a few bloggers here should really think about following.

  29. Aaron capitalising the C in uncanadian is incorrect and quite distracting, and repeating it five times in two paragraphs forces me to beg you to stop trashing the English language. You are a journalist right? Maybe Macleans needs an editor to moderate the blog posts.

    Maybe the Conservative Parliamentary Secretary should moderate his language, but what’s the point of your second paragraph?

    Regarding the coalition: the ball is in Count Ignatieff’s court, regardless of his claims to be waiting for Mr Harper to “walk down the hill”.

  30. john g,

    “…it’s not because you are partisan; it’s because you are partisan while pretending, in the absense of any such declaration, to be non partisan.”

    It’s not because you are objective; it’s because you are not objective while pretending, in the absence of any such declaration, to be objective.

  31. “Regarding the coalition: the ball is in Count Ignatieff’s court, regardless of his claims to be waiting for Mr Harper to ‘walk down the hill’.”

    So Harper will have a hissy fit, because Iggy won’t let him have his ball back?

  32. Ignoring all the partisan bickering that blog postings on Maclean’s site seems to attract these days (meaning I end up reading only about 10% of the posted comments), it sure would be nice if a journalist asked Poilievre what he defines as being “unCanadian”. Anybody tried that yet?

Sign in to comment.