This is the city I live in now -

This is the city I live in now


A month after the CBC hired Stephen Harper’s former director of communications and a CBC reporter was breathlessly reported to be the designated traveller for a Conservative MP, the national broadcaster has astutely been identified by the Conservative party as a major force in the liberal media conspiracy and the pollster who is central to this conspiracy has been made to go on the national airwaves and explain to that former director of communications which politicians he’s donated money to in the past. And so the pollster has now formally and publicly apologized for thoughts offered to a Globe and Mail columnist.

Filed under:

This is the city I live in now

  1. Some days, you just can't win.

    Especially when you're a pollster and offer advice based on conclusions for which a statistical foundation has not been laid.

  2. Talk about shooting their own party in both feet . incite a culture war between urban and rural – good grief! – the liberal damage control center is perplexed on this one … what awful timing for this. The best advice for lib's right now is just hide in plain sight and let harper be harper otherwise they are going to run out of feet to shoot!

    • "Talk about shooting their own party in both feet"

      So… a pollster talks to a newspaper reporter, and this somehow represents the Liberal Party shooting *itself* in both feet?

      The only way that this will hurt the Liberal Party is that people will disingenuously conflate Frank Graves' words with LPC policy. You know, like you just did.

    • They've been doing this, with one notable exception, since May 2009 when Ignatieff became leader. It hasn't gotten them anywhere and won't. This is precisely the point Mr. Graves made, prompting the Cons to bring to bear their culture of deceit and hypocrisy. Seriously, political pundits offering up unsolicited advice to pols? Neither new nor noteworthy, yet the furor is nurtured by the likes of Ezra Levant and Kory Teneycke.

  3. I kind of want to click on the tags to see what comes up.

    • I did, and it loops back to this post.

    • I don't recall Aaron resorting to that kind of overt condor before.

    • Didn't Aaron used to be a sportswriter?

      I've got it! The post is narrated in the voice of Mel Allen?

  4. I clicked on the tag and suprise suprise, nothing else came up. This week in bullshit wasn't tagged to the any of the Gaffer Epic, but suggest that a pollster is a small l-liberal and the cbc is full of small l-liberals then it becomes bullshit.
    My favorite part is that somehow this is really all the CBC's token conservative voice's fault.
    Why are small l-liberals in the media so offended when someone suggests they may have a liberal bias?
    Frak Graves said on P&P that he is a "centrist-moderate" but dared us to find any biaas in his anaylisis. Wouldn't there be a "centrist-moderate" bias?

  5. Allan Gregg offers advice all the time, as does Bricker and Nanos. Luntz in the US is famous for his "provocative" language.

    What's the big deal? Graves was just mouthing off to a columnist.

    Harper's internal polls must be devastating to have them so on edge.

    • Good point.
      Does Gregg have to apologize to for throwing out advice to just about political party and politician when he's on 'At Issue' on the same CBC? Of course not.
      This whole Graves /Teneycke/ Solomon episode looks like a PMO operation, with Solomon a willing dupe..

      • Actually, this may end up helping the Liberals since I just saw Ezra Levant on the CBC, which naturally gives instant attack ad material.

  6. It's too bad Graves's advice to give the CPC a taste of the culture war it imported, lock, stock and barrel from the Republicans (with a little local flavour from the 51st state, Alberta) is getting lost in this complex of conflict of interest.

    • The Tiggy's of the Lbieral Party and other like-minded hard-core Liberal partisans will like this return to Liberal negativism that the Liberals honed to fine art in the 1990's and early 2000's. The Canadian electorate however won't buy the over the top vicious attacks the Liberals used back then.

      The Liberals have cried wolf once too often. This time 'round, they'll be ignored.

      Sorry to say Tiggy.

      • Thank you dear. Now time for bed.

  7. The CBC owes Graves an apology. Graves answered a legit question from a journalist about giving advice to a party with an honest answer. But Teneycke was allowed to attack him as if he was employed by the Liberal Party. Solomon sat back like a wimp and let Teneycke virtually control the agenda of the program. Personal details of his party donations was obviously a vicious ambush on Graves which Solomon seemed to be aware was coming.
    The whole episode is sickening. At least we get to see the kind of person Harper employs in his close personal staff.

  8. I don't get why Graves needed to apologize.

    • We know you don`t get it.

    • Even when he told the Globe and Mail that he has empirical evidence that racists and homophobes gravitate to the Conservatives?

      Here's a little experiment. Replace "conservatives" with any ethnic or other minority. Then speculate on how long Graves would get to keep his job after making a statement like that.

      • "Even when he told the Globe and Mail that he has empirical evidence that racists and homophobes gravitate to the Conservatives?"

        I take it you believe such a thing is highly doubtful.

        • Can somebody lose this jerk ?

          • Can you follow him?

          • Bite me.

          • I would probably get gangrene.

          • ?

            I wasn't telling you to bite me. Although if "common man" did bite someone, that person would likely get gangrene, that is true.

      • Certainly not all conservatives are racists and homophobes, but most homophobes and racists are equally certainly conservatives. It's part of the base. And you cannot analogize that away.

  9. Yeah, that's the thing I thought was remarkable. If it's as if Teneycke thought he could be the host all of sudden.

    Why on Earth did the CBC think it need another talking head? Especially that hypersonic motor-mouth?

    • Oh oh! Tiggy's upset that Teneycke smoked out Frank Graves from his Liberal lair.

      I think Tenyecke has done Canadians a public service by disclosing this pollster's political contributions. I though Frank was quite forthcoming on where he stands on the political spectrum as well when asked. He gets kudos from me on that. Ekos did some good polling last election. That said, from now on, I'll take Graves' spin on his numbers with a little grain of salt.

      • That's swell dear. Now time for bed.

  10. The way the Cons have so fervently jumped on this and on the gun registry bit – with frothing at the mouth fury totally out of proportion to the context – is very interesting.

    While all media attention has been, as it has for 4 years now, been on just how bad the Liberal leader is doing and could he be doing any worse… few are focusing on why Harper is doing so very very badly too.

    2-3% points separate Ignatieff from Harper. But Canada has done fairly well in this recession and is emerging somewhat OK so far, Harper has been running vicious negative attack ad campaigns, has been using about $100 million of our taxpayer money to promote his government, uses all sorts of government resources to either promote himself or attack the Liberals, and the Liberals still have not fully got their act together as a solid credible alternative government.

    So why is Harper lower in the polls than every other world leader (including, until Wednesday of this week, Gordon Brown) and why do Canadians increasingly think worse of his performance?

    • It's because he's a dick.

      I am an educated and reasonably intelligent person. I don't have much to argue with this government's policies (fiscally, they are a bit left for me but who isn't).

      But SH is an arrogant prick. I vote with my heart not my mind. I shouldn't, but I do.

    • I take it you haven't actually read any polls on leadership of late as your statementmnent indicates check out leadership numbers at NANOS and then come back and correct yourself.

      • Nope. Based on current polls over the last month or so that show Harper stuck in the low 30s and job approval ratings and views on the direction the government is going which are sliding slowly down.

        Meanwhile, leaders in Europe who have it tougher – either even more parties to compete with (Germany), leaders who are really not liked (England, France), and far worse recessions (all of Europe) – are doing better than Harper.

        Face it, as much as Canadians are not lining up behind Ignatieff, only an embarrassingly few more are lining up behind Harper.

        • I'm fairly convinced that if the Conservative Party found a way to sack Harper, select a replacement, and run an election, they would get a majority.

          Whenever I talk to someone about the Conservative Party the conversation always turn to how horrible Harper is, liberals and conservatives alike. While a conversation about the Liberal Party is never this focused.

    • For me, there are several things that stand out about Harper.

      One is that the government lobby of the House Of Commons is entirely decorated with portraits of Stephen Harper. There are no other former prime ministers or other politicians displayed there (not even Conservative ones). What kind of person would need that kind of ego-stroking, or would allow it? I can't think of another Prime Minister (even Mulroney) who raised himself into that sort of cult figure.

      Two: according to Elizabeth May, for a televised leaders' debate before the last election, the debaters were advised that they could bring in blank paper on which to take notes while other leaders spoke. Harper apparently brought in pre-written notes that were made to look as if they were written on the spot.

      Three: why are he and his party angry all of the time, and why do they behave like perpetual outsiders? Harper has been in power for over four years now – surely, the Conservatives are now the insiders? Possibly, this is because they are aware that most of the electorate don't like them (recall that they have a plurality of seats, not a majority of votes), and are defensive about it.

      Four: his lack of respect for the basic institutions of Canadian government. He prorogues Parliament whenever he feels like it, seems bent on turning the Seante into a rubber stamp, has imposed ruthless centralized control on all decision-making processes in his party (for example, forcing Calgary West Conservatives to put with Rob Anders, even when they don't want him), and revealing as little as possible about anything, ever. (Why exactly was Guergis turfed out of the party?)

      I see Harper as a dangerous man, of a type not seen in Canadian politics to this point. (And I'm from Ontario, which endured ten years of Mike Harris and his party.) Canada's government will remain fractured beyond repair until he is gone.

  11. [cont]
    I think it is in that where you can understand why they are jumping so hard onto these issues.

    The Conservatives only do well when they are in their natural, comfort zone, which is attacking others rather than leading or talking about their own solutions.

    • All this foaming at the mouth helps keep the dogs off things like 'special interest groups who support getting rid of the gun registry', of which the CONs would like us to believe don't exist…

  12. There may have never been a time when the media has been in such a disconnect with Canadians. I don`t know whether CBC has hit single digits yet in viewership yet but it is a matter of time. The Toronto Star can only keep up it`s readership by giving away newspapers. More and more people are relying on other means for staying current.

    The CBC has to keep a token conservative voice on just to have some semblance of neutrality. The fact is most of us agree with a reasonable voice like Teneycke then all the liberal contributors they keep on staff. Canadians just want good government. We have it now. When Graves sees a trend otherwise, he should let us know. Until then he should be quiet.

    • Yes, the CBC absolutely needs more conservative voices, if only to balance out the rhetoric coming from such screaming pinkos as Allan Gregg, Rex Murphy, and Andrew Coyne.

      • Oh, and Tom Flanagan. I forgot about him…although to be fair, he's pretty easy to forget – just ask Shelley Glover ;)

        • Don't forget John Iveson and Don Martin

  13. “I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy,” Graves is quoted in the story. “If the cranky old men in Alberta don't like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.”

    Hahahahahaha. Libs have been following this advice for at least the past decade and goes long way to explaining why Libs struggle to reach the lofty heights of 30% support in polls and why Dion crashed and burned last election. Long may the Lib circle jerk continue.

    • Parochialism: Harper's firewalls, "Tim Horton's Canadians" vs the latte sippers. The Liberal Party of Toronto.
      Moralism: Harper's "moral clarity" over Israel; the imposition of morality by the state with abortion and gay marriage; embrace of the theocons.
      Racism: It wasn't too long ago that Conservatives were re-asserting the positive value of cultural pride as opposed to the confusion brought about by muiticulturalism. Those called "dog whistles" for racists.
      Homophobia: Let's cinche our gorges and review the record of through three years of the SSM debate.
      Autocracy: Muzzled cabinet, strangled FOI request process, three prorogations.
      Palin popularity: So a search of Palin and Blogging Tories
      Cranky old men in Alberta: Apology required. They're not exclusively old or men or confined to Alberta. But they are cranky.

      ….just off the top my head…

      The truth hurts, doesn't it?

  14. I`m really surprised at Mr. Wherry`s petulance in his post especially the tags. Maybe he`s just having fun or maybe he thinks this apology thing might become a trend.

    • Can we lose this jerk?

  15. For the record, Graves can believe what he wants. His comments and attitude towards Alberta and the Conservatives being a "safe haven" for racists and homophobes are are a complete disgrace and would get him fired if he were talking about any identifiable group other than Conservatives, but that's not the real issue. He's a private citizen. I don't require any answers from him.

    I also have no reason to believe that any part of this controversy discredits the polling work done by Ekos (i.e. I have no reason to believe he is fudging the numbers).

    But according to Lawrence Martin he's said he's given this advice to the Liberals. Who will follow up with Ignatieff or Donolo to probe the Liberals' usage of this obviously controversial advice, especially given Ignatieff's recent edicts on the gun registry?

    Given Graves' donation history, how much money did the Liberals give this guy to do government polling when they were in power? Was there a quid pro quo?

    And how long has the CBC been passing Graves off as a neutral independent analyst/pollster? I would hope that everyone criticizing Guergis for the anonymous letter writing of her staff would be just as offended by this.

    • If the Conservatives didn't want a culture war, they shouldn't have started one.

    • He did not give it directly to the Liberals. He was asked by Martin what advice he would offer to the Liberals and he offered it.

      And to say he is biased because of some comments or donations, please. Come join us in the fact-based world. Just two weeks ago, he said the Liberals were going nowhere fast and everything was looking solid for Harper. In December he said Harper is unbeatable. Like every other pollster has always done, he has "offered advice" to Harper, to Layton, to Dion and every other leader on what he, as a close observer of what Canadians seem to be thinking, thinks they should do to better there numbers.

      To me, the extent to which the Conservatives have jumped on this and the gun registry ticketing idea of Ignatieff shows that they have really run out of ideas on how to run government. They can only gain and stay focused when they are on the attack, trying to tear down, and they are unable to tackle serious issues and show leadership.

      • To highlight that last point, after taking a three month break to "re-calibrate" and re-focus their government, what ideas are they offering Canadians? There are lots of significant problems and issues to address that are desperate to be addressed like health care, Afghanistan, trade, inter-provincial trade and securities, aboriginals, etc.

        But what have we gotten? Regurgitation of crime bills that they have already introduced 2 or 3 times, emotional reactions to pardon laws that they said were pretty OK just two years ago, a do nothing budget that increases overall spending and doesn't cut anything except the military, and now gun registry.

        This is not a serious government. You can argue that there is no serious opposition and I'm not sure many would disagree, but opposition is opposition and government is supposed to provide leadership. Not shoot and run guerilla warfare.

        • All Graves is advising the Liberals to do is what the Reform/Cons have been doing for a decade, ghet some good wedge issues and push them hard.

  16. When EKOS calls you to answer questions – they then ask if you are willing to take further polls. If you answer yes, then they advise that you number has been recorded and you will be called back in a few days.

    You then get a call back (EKOS) on your call display. It is a research company referred to as "Probit" doing polling for guess who – THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.

    The Cons via our taxes are doing polling via EKOS/Probit.

    • Thats B.S

      • Actually it is not. Read up on it.

        • I am not lying about this. My sister got a call around April 16th from EKOS – she showed me as it's still on her call display. She was called back on April 21st – from EKOS on her call display and she was curious and asked some questions of her own and bingo, bango it was a research firm Probit ( EKOS on her call display/1-888 number) doing polling for The Government of Canada.

          It's absolutely true.

    • Holy Pete! The Government pays people to find out what you're thinking on a variety of policy issues! Scandal! Scandal!

      Seriously? Get over it.

      • Holy Pete – don't you get the hypocracy here? The Tories attack the pollster that they use themselves.

        And, no – I don't need you to tell me what I find acceptable thank you very much.

        • When you find that Graves has been kicking back money to the Tories to get government polling business (and I mean more than the $500 he gave to a candidate he liked), then you might have a story here.

          As of now, all we know is that the Liberals gave Ekos $61 million while they were in power, that Graves donated $11K to the Liberal party, and that the media will not go anywhere near this story.

          • I'm not trying to get a story – I'm telling a fact. All this hype from Tory Teneycke is just that. He's creating a huge, monstrous storm, as usual to try to convince the folks out there that this whole country has a media, polling, etc. with Liberal bias. It's a strategy.

            Unfortunately, people are letting Corn Cob Bob manipulate them.

          • I wonder if Teneycke and PMO hatched this plot from the time he left PMO. Become a pundit, get on CBC, preferably with a bit of a sap who's not too experienced or all that bright (Evan), and then bring disrepute on both pollster and CBC. Helps to set up sell of of CBC if Harper get s a majority. One thing for sure, Teneycke pundit status is a temporary ruse. He's still working for you know who.

  17. Chris Selley exposes Frank Graves's little white lies:

    Graves: In the course of the interview with Lawrence Martin I offered the Liberals some unsolicited strategic “advice”. To the extent that readers may have taken the inference I had previously proffered this advice to the Liberal Party of Canada, it was a mistaken inference.

    Lawrence Martin responds: "The quote is exactly as Frank gave it to me. 'I told them…' meaning the Liberals."

    • I thought Chris Selley was busy updating his cv? If he isn't he should be.

      • Ever occur to anyone that Lawrence Martin is trying to save his own butt? He said, he said – is no proof whatsoever.

  18. EKKOS the most unreliable pollster in Canada.His Liberal bias shows in every poll question. Now he claims the conservative party is anti gay.why doesn't he just put his Liberal membership on his stationary.Graves should not be taken seriously by any fair minded person and as a member of the Conservative party I am encouraging our constituency to sue him for making the statement about anti gay this is libelous

    • Meanwhile, I've still got the flyer sent from the government and thus courtesy of my tax dollars that accuses Liberals of being antisemites.

    • So biased against the Liberals that he consistently shows Ignatieff doing poorly.

      With friends like that…

  19. Hopefully he'll come back to Macleans, like other NaPo refugees.

    • Yeah, I hope they all come here as well.

  20. That's because Ignatieff really is consistently doing poorly. It has nothing to do with the pollster's alleged bias, or lack thereof.

  21. Sheesh. You guys would look at a the Leaning Tower of Piza and say Italy is biased against conservatives because the tower leans to the left.

  22. It's not like conservatives could blame the Italian media.

  23. I don't really care that Frank Graves is a wealthy Liberal donor. You could probably say the same about many other pollsters. As long as his personal bias doesn't interfere with his professional polling work, it doesn't make a difference to me.

    • In polling, as in other industries, reputation is everything. Pollsters have ZERO incentive to bias their questions, their sample, or their analysis.

      • I agree. Frank Graves may be in the tank for the Liberals, but he doesn't dare turn out biased polls lest his professional reputation suffer.

  24. EKOS is losing credibility fast. Their press releases are full of odd remarks, and Mr. Graves' behaviour is an embarrassment to the organization. While I enjoy reading their weekly polls, they will quickly be ridiculed and ignored if the organization doesn't demonstrate more professionalism.


  25. The Liberals want to start a culture war dividing Canadians, just like they did in 2000, 2004 and 2006.

    The difference is that demonizing those Canadians who don't share their views will backfire. One of the reasons it will backfire is that Canadians don't like negative campaigns. Secondly, the election will be decided on the economy. That is the ballot box question.

    And most importantly, it'll be very hard to depict the Conservatives, who've drifted to the center since taking power, as rabid right-wingers.

    So all in all, Frank's advice is easier said than done.

    • "And most importantly, it'll be very hard to depict the Conservatives, who've drifted to the center since taking power, as rabid right-wingers."

      Mr. Wells apparently disagrees with you.

      • I do disagree with Mr. Wells on this. The problem for the Liberals right now is that there is not all that much difference between how they would govern Canada and how the Conservatives are governing Canada.

        I would say that is especially so on the so-called "culture war" issues. There really isn't much of a difference at all.

        I know Paul mentioned the Conservative's pro-Israel line. They have moved Canada's position to being somewhat more pro-Israel but I don't even think that is a particularly right/left issue. A few people have strong views on this – most Canadians are agnostic on it.. On law and order the Conservatives are moving a little to the right and the Liberals have followed, but in that case I think the parties are following the electorate more than anything else.

    • I think Mr. Graves, like most liberals, seriously underestimates the Conservative Party's willingness to cede the ground on "culture war" issues. If anyone here knows a social conservative, ask them about this. So to start a culture war the Libs would have to push radical changes to a status quo that is already pretty damned liberal, when back in their winning days they got plenty of votes from people who were on the other side of those debates. Now I don't have any empirical data to suggest that this would be a bad idea and Mr. Graves presumably has information to support his advice (unless, unless… why it's so obvious: HE'S A CONSERVATIVE PLANT!). So let's just say I am very skeptical and need to be persuaded that this is a good idea.

      As an aside about something that has always bothered me, Mr. Graves is like a lot of pollsters who go into the field, get the vote intention, leadership numbers, and so forth, and then, presumably for dramatic effect, give sound bites to the media outlet publishing the poll that seem to just make up reasons for the results ("Harper is clearly connecting with middle class parents with his child care plan"… really? Because the article I read didn't mention you asking about child care). Has anyone else noticed this? Maybe they do always ask a "why" question, and it just never gets in the article.

      • "Has anyone else noticed this?"

        I have and I object to it strenuously. Pollsters should restrict themselves to saying things that the data they've elicited can tell them.

  26. I must say I would find the Muppet outrage at labeling the Conservative party the natural home for racists and homophobs a tad more convincing if they were not defending the party of Lukiwski and Anders. Seriously, the statement that racists and homophobs tend towards the right of the political spectrum is simply a statement of the obvious. (No that does not mean that the majority of Conservatives are either) That the Conservatives have not cleaned out their caucus is however a disgrace.

    • Who should I defend Stewart? The party of Wappel and Coderre?

      Face it Stewart..Every party has people they would prefer never have a light shone on them. The only difference between the Liberals and Conservatives is that the media obliges when it's the Liberals.

      • Well perhaps if Wappel was still an MP the media might oblige.. and certainly Coderre's antics have been covered. In any case, Coderre is a idiot who may well have mental issues but is hardly a systematic racist or homophob (although I am sure you are capable of finding evidence for virtually any accusation from the massive, incoherent volume of material he has left out there. ) Just as the right is the natural home for racists and homophobs the left is where people who have lost touch with reality tend to land.

        My point was the leadership of the parties should understand who there "fringe" are and manage them. Harper has not done that, and indeed at times he seems to view being leader of the Conservatives as more important than being the Prime Minister of Canada.

  27. Lawrence Martin would like to disagree with you. See CR's post below.

    • He's told Harper he needed to soften his image, he's told Dion he needed to toughen up.

      Every pollster has told the subjects of his or her poll what that pollster thinks they should do.

      And you folks whine about the Liberals "constant outrage" over crapola. Pot meet kettle.

      • Yes, he may have done so. But so what? Those suggestions aren't particularly controversial are they? It's not like he told Harper to come up with a bunch of policies that, just for example, alienate Quebec, and if the froggies don't like it they can join France.

        Ted, are you one of the partisan snipers that liked to bitch about Harper's "Alberta firewall" comment?

        If you did (and as a hardcore LPC defender and partisan…I would even say a Lib-bot given your desperate channel changing attempts here), then I must ask…why is it OK with you for Graves to effectively suggest that the Liberals build a firewall around Alberta, but its not OK for Harper to suggest same thing?

        • WTF?

          Where on earth did you get that I think I agree with Graves or think it is OK to do as he suggests? Is it your general habit to pretend someone said something or believes something just so you can argue against them?

          I certainly do think it is astonishing that we could elect someone as Prime Minister who stated that if Alberta didn't get its way in changing our constitution it should consider leaving. I know exactly what Harper would say if a Liberal candidate had ever suggested something even remotely similar. But democracy is democracy and I have no questions of his patriotism (just his honesty, integrity, plans, competence, etc.).

          • "Where on earth did you get that"

            You should have stopped there. Being didactic with Conservatives gets you nowhere.

  28. oooooops, Iffy will have to climb down this hill too!

    Ignatieff slams Harper for 'failure to unite Canada'
    May 2, 2009

    "Mr. Harper, you don't understand Canada … that a prime minister is there to unite a country, not divide it…. You are failing to do your duty," he said.

    "Mr. Harper you have failed us. If you can't unite Canadians, if you can't appeal to the best in all of us, we can…. We Liberals can build a federation based on co-operation, not on confrontation."

    LOL, that was before being counselled by Graves.

  29. The bilious Liberal partisan commenter "Maclean's Regular" (a.k.a. Ti-G*y or Tiggy) likes the Liberal "culture war" idea.

    When your hard-core partisans bereft of any political acumen are applauding the idea, you know it's going nowhere fast.

    The Liberals at 20% in the polls in the near future? Don't rule it out.

    I always thought their base was about 30%, but it has been under that for long stretches of time these last couple of years.

    • I hate the idea of a cultural war (Canadian don't do culture wars). But since the Conservatives started one (following the model of their Republican betters), I have no problem giving them some of their own medicine in return.

      • You can't fool us here Tiggy, we know you all too well.

        Negative hate-mongering attacks against anyone who disagrees with "monsieur" appears to be your,


        • What negative hate-mongering attacks? Please list them or retract your odious defamation.

          • Well, for starters, you were banned here under your former pseudonym Ti-G*y, and you weren't banned for your civility.

            How about your nice little post left over at Biff's Place on March 28th? The one I can't print here because of the language?

          • Again:

            What negative hate-mongering attacks? Please list them or retract your odious defamation.

          • Just for the record, I like this idea, proposed by Graves.

          • Your support is noted BC. It's at least a strategy of sorts.

            Still, tacking left has placed the Liberals in a precarious position under Dion. And Iggy's Liberalism isn't compatible with that strategy. His progressive credentials are less than stellar for reasons which we all know.

          • Oh and I was going to say his heart ain't in it. Why don't we get it from the horse's mouth?

            Here's Iggy's take in a interview yesterday with a Saskatoon editiorial board:

            "Canadians do not see these issues in left and right terms. I actively reject this "culture wars" stuff. (Graves) is not speaking for the Liberal party. I want to bring Canadians together, not divide them."

            I beleive Iggy when he says this. I also beleive that Iggy will do what he's told by his political handlers. So he will try to polarize the debate, notwithstanding that he finds it distasteful.

            But if Iggy's heart ain't in it, I don't see how they'll make much headway. The odds seem against it, like Montreal winning the Stanley Cup this year.

          • Well somebody has to stand up for Canadian values, and it's sure not the Stephen Harper Reform Conservative movement or whatever you call it. And yes, Republican inspired.
            I think Iggy has been negligent in not speaking more forcefully for Canadian values.

          • There really isn't that much difference between the two parties though.

            The Liberal Party in its arrogance used to proclaim, not that long ago, that it, and only it, was the purveyor of "Canadian values". What incredible arrogance.

            The Liberals saw themselves and apparently thereare still some Liberals who see themselves as the only ones who can speak for Canadians.

            This conflating of the Liberal Party with the Canadians state, this hubristic notion, is what got the Liberals in trouble with Adscam etc. – since they were one with the state, they could take whatever means were required to carry out their agenda.

            The Liberals are a politcal party like any other – give Canadians a policy platform and stop this nonsense that only Liberals speak for Canadians. The polls, amongst other things, don't bear this hubristic notion out.

          • "I think Iggy has been negligent in not speaking more forcefully for Canadian values. "

            I hope Graves publishes the evidence he claims he has to substantiate what we all know to be true about "Conservative values" (bigotry, racism, parochialism, moraliism, autocracy, etc.) This constant right wing denial is getting tedious. And we can't count on the journalists to point it out, since their timorous editors are to cowed by the inevitable screeching backlash.

            This in no way suggests the items above are necessarily Conservatives values; they just represent the values of those groups Harper managed to cobble together to reconstitute a "Conservative" party.

            Iggy and the Liberals don't necessarily have to make a culture war "obvious." He just has to forcefully assert the contrasts to these narrow, exclusive and illiberal values.

  30. Poll cat fight.

  31. Wherry, your reportage is beginning to read like Kady O’Malley. I can’t make sense of it all. Tone it down please (if you can…).

  32. And the right-wing infiltrates the media to control it – just the way that Evangelical Christians infiltrate everything else.

  33. Solomon did not do a good job of controlling K. Teneycke during the interview with Graves, and allowed him to be dishonestly partisan throughout. Apparently CBC is going to allow its right-wing journalists to walk all over the guests, especially if the interview is run by Evan Solomon.

    I refuse to donate to the Friends of CBC because of Evan Solomon's interviews with people he doesn't agree with, and this just confirms why. Graves was courteous, and he was overwhelmed by Teneycke's outright falsehoods, and the fact that Solomon did nothing to control it.

    Shame on you, CBC. You've slipped a great deal in my estimation.