This is the week that was -

This is the week that was


The NDP leadership candidates took their debate to Montreal. The latest fundraising totals put Thomas Mulcair in the lead. MPs continued to pick sides. The most experienced MPs were decidedly split. The Nash campaign signed up young people. Romeo Saganash chose Mr. Mulcair. Five female MPs championed Brian Topp. Nathan Cullen picked up momentum. Jamey Heath argued for his candidate. Gabriela Perdomo talked to Niki Ashton. And a deal between Thomas Mulcair and Martin Singh was speculated.

As to what happened in Guelph, the Conservatives pleaded ignorance. The list of ridings where voters received suspicious calls about their polling stations grew and grew and grew and grew. Bob Rae asked a simple question. Elections Canada investigated the Conservative campaign’s expense reports in Guelph. Maurice Vellacott blamed Elections Canada. Elections Canada invited complaints. The NDP filed new reports. The public looked unkindly on the Conservatives and Liberals. The Conservatives suddenly supported new powers for the chief electoral officer. Question Period was usurped by Twitter. The result in Nipissing-Timiskaming might be challenged. Dean Del Mastro ventured a categorical response. Pierre Poutine became Pierre Jones. The logic of the government’s latest talking point was questionable. And older voters might have been the target.

The Speaker ruled against Anonymous. The NDP moved that Veterans Affairs be exempt from budget cuts. The Harper government voted otherwise. The Conservative party gave up its appeal of in-and-out. Dean Del Mastro sought refuge in an elevator. The CBC discovered strange paperwork in Eglinton-Lawrence. Jack Harris had 21,000 things to say about the government’s omnibus crime bill. And the Prime Minister justified intervening in Air Canada’s labour dispute.


This is the week that was

  1. Why is there no mention of the illegal Liberal robocalls anywhere here ?

    The law requires that whoever paid for a call put their name on it.

    In the last election the Liberals bombarded Geulph residents with calls about social issues to scare them away from voting Conservative.

    The calls were designed to sound like they were from a local woman and not from the Liberal party.

    It sounds like intentional deception to me although they are saying it was an “oversight”. 

    Either way we now have confirmation that election laws were breached in Geulph.

    It just wasn’t the Tories. It was the Liberals.  

    • Mmm sorry, no

      But it was a valiant effort on your part….just outdated talking points

      • What part of a factually true statement are you saying no to Emily ?

        I’ll number each and every fact and go point by point and make it really, really easy for you.

        1) Whoever pays for an advertisement needs to put their name on it

        2) In the last election the Liberal campaign in Geulph sent out robocalls without their name on it. This has been confirmed by the Liberal MP in the riding. He admits error.

        3) No electoral wrong doing has been tied to the Conservatives anywhere in the country

        4) A case of electoral wrong doing has now been tied to the Liberals.

        Emily you’re up to bat. Which point do you want to dispute ?

        Time to take off the blinders and deal in reality. This hyper partisan make believe world you’re living in just won’t cut it if you want to be taken seriously here.

        • Focus JD

          Robocalls….for the umpteenth time…are not illegal.

          All parties do robocalls

          They may be nasty, they may be annoying….but they are not illegal.

          Pretending to be an Elections Canada official….and claiming your poll location has changed…. IS illegal.

          And so far….only Cons stand accused of that.

          In 41 ridings at last count.

          • You’re off the mark.Nobody claimed that robocalls are illegals. We’re talking about two different violations of election law.The unproven allegations that the Tories were behind a false call from EC.Yes those calls were illegal. We are in agreement. We are trying to find out who is behind them. As of yet nobody knows. The proven fact that the Liberals were behind a call in which they did not disclose that they were behind the message. This is the part that seems to be lost on you.
            SO i’ll repeat point number one from above:1) Whoever pays for an advertisement needs to put their name on itGot it ? Do you now understand ?Can you focus Emily ?

          • LOL  I know you’re trying to minimize this, and restrict the damage to one riding….but it won’t work.

             Illegal calls were made all over the country….41 ridings so far about a change of polling stations.

            The Liberal call was disclosed, and accounted for financially. Elections Canada knows all about it. And it wasn’t illegal in any case.

          • @OriginalEmily1:disqus 

            Are you just going la la la la with your eyes covered and ears plugged ?

            You’ve just been presented with a slum dunk case of an electoral violation in Geulph from the Liberals.

            How many other complaints to EC coming from across Canada were due to Liberal sponsored robocalls ?

            We know at least 2 of those 41 ridings you refered to are Shelly Glover and Dean Del Mastro’s in which Conservative members have complained about phone calls.

            How many other illegal mystery calls were sent out across Canada ? Was this coordinated with the central campaign ?

            Fake names. Hidden involvement.

            Dirty tricks.

          • @JD 

            No la la la is required JD….it’s not illegal, and it was reported.  The caller even gave her name.

            Try as you will to muddy the waters here, the Cons are the ones with a problem.

          • @yahoo-K5XAITELSHKETDEDYIH6U5AF54:disqus 

            I’m sorry….I forgot that Cons have difficulty with English, and the meaning of words. They are very literal.

            Everything has to be explained in detail to them…repeatedly. Caveats thrown in on every comment. Routine conversational convention isn’t understood.

            ‘We’ always trips them up….and so does ‘real’.

            ‘Real women’, ‘real Canadians’….like everyone else wandering around is made of paper mache or plastic or something!

            The woman was doing a commercial…an ad….and she gave a real name. One that people could call her by, or track her down with.

            That doesn’t mean it’s her legal name for daily use in her own life.

            Think of her as an actress if it helps.

          • @OriginalEmily1:disqus 

            Emily you are being silly now.Let me run through this for you.Real name = her legal nameNickname = a name you call somebody by that isn’t their real nameStage name = A name a performer uses that isn’t their real name. I’m not the one being literal. I’m not the one having trouble with English.You appear to be the one who is too proud to admit a factual error so you are now spinning a semantic argument that nobody is buying.You have damaged your credibility. Cut your loses. Don’t continue with this.

          • @yahoo-K5XAITELSHKETDEDYIH6U5AF54:disqus 

            Now my ribs hurt from laughing so hard.

          • @OriginalEmily1:disqus I’m not quite sure why you would be laughing.

            Perhaps at yourself for allowing this to go on so long and for you to have been so silly this morning ?

            Another cup of coffee is in order maybe ?

            I think you are quite capable of being a grown up and correcting your mistake.

            She did not use her “real name”. She used a name. Call it a nick name call it a stage name. Call it anything you like.

            But it is most certainly not her “real name”.

          • @yahoo-K5XAITELSHKETDEDYIH6U5AF54:disqus 

            I’m laughing at your utter foolishness of righteously beating a red herring to death on here.

            Maybe you should have gone to church instead.

          • There are many ways to violate the Elections Act, some more serious than others – do you understand that?

          • @OriginalEmily1:disqus 

            Ok so you believe that Liberals violating election laws are a red herring.

            That’s at least a position you can defend.

            I’m glad you’ve stopped that utter rubbish about this woman using her real name.

            You were mistaken on that point. You’ve been corrected.

            I’m glad we’ve moved on.

          • @yahoo-K5XAITELSHKETDEDYIH6U5AF54:disqus 

            Yup, we’ve moved on….I got tired of trying to explain English as a second language to you.

            So you may chase your tail….or that battered red herring’s tail ….all you like. By yourself.


          • @OriginalEmily1:disqus 

            Wait, it looks like you’re still defending your ridiculous position.

            When you criticize my english are you somehow suggesting that i’m using the wrong definition of a real name ?

            I can’t think of a single person who would call using a name other than your legal name to be using your real name.

            The very definition of a real name is your legal name.

            Please take a moment to enlighten us.

            What do you consider a real name ? Your definition seems to be confused with the definitions of a stage name or a nick name.

        • @OriginalEmily1:disqus you’ve made two factual errors. Yes it is illegal. No she did not give her name.

          I’ll correct them for you one by one with information from the CBC report.

          “The caller even gave her name.”

          Valeriote said the call was recorded by a volunteer from his campaign who used a fake name

          “not illegal”

          EC … pointed to the laws on election advertising that say candidates or anyone acting on their behalf has to mention in the message that the ad is authorized by the campaign

          • @JD
            Yes, she did give her name…her real name.
            And EC is aware of it.

            In the recorded message from last spring, a female voice warns against
            Burke’s anti-abortion views.

            The woman identifies herself as Laurie, or Lori, MacDonald and says she’s
            been an advocate for women’s rights nearly all her life.
            Read more:

          • I’m thinking JD is just another sorry troll. Finger permanently stuck in ears, won’t/can’t reason. I guess I’ll have to post the definition again.

            In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: “That was an excellent troll you posted”. 

          • Emily that’s not her real name. Read the CBC story. It includes this information and the CTV story does not.


            “Valeriote said the call was recorded by a volunteer from his campaign who used a fake name because she feared retribution from anti-abortion activists.”

            Laurie MacDonald is not a real individual.

            Its a fake name being used by a Valeriote campaign volunteer.

            “And EC is aware of it.”

            EC cannot confirm this.

            When Valeriote says the calls were reported on his campaign expenses they would simply appear as an expense to a company who’s name I believe is Prime Contact.

            I believe he must be mistaken. When did he speak to EC ? Before or after the election ? Why would they tell him the calls are OK when they are clearly illegal ?

            Why won’t they confirm they have spoken to him ?

          • Oh, for the love of gawd! Read the damn story. She gave a false name with the excuse that she was afraid of repercussions from Pro-Life zealots.

            Do you not realize how badly your credibility is damaged when you get something so basic so wrong?

          • I’m sorry JD but I misread your comments.  Please accept my apologies.

          • @yahoo-K5XAITELSHKETDEDYIH6U5AF54:disqus 


            Give it a rest guys….again you are off on tangents, and the red herring got smelly long time ago.

          • Emily it would help your credibility if wouldn’t make false claims and then when you are corrected tell everyone to give it a rest.

            Especially when you yourself have fully engaged in the discussion.

            I understand you were going off of the CTV story which was incomplete.

            Fine. That’s their fault and not yours.

            But now that you’ve read the CBC story I trust you are fully up to date on the illegal activity committed by the Liberal campaign in Geulph.

        • You people back to the ‘we didn’t doing anything wrong’ position? Full circle in less than 2 weeks. 

    • JD —  what can I say — you have no sense of perspective. 

      • Perspective ?

        How many of these scare tactic phone calls were made across Canada ?

        Did the other ridings involve people lying about their identitites ?
        Did the other phone calls involve the failure to disclose who was paying for the message ?

        We might have a national case of coordinated voter fraud sponsored by the Liberal party in multiple ridings and you are saying i’m the one losing perspective ?

        Why aren’t we all freaking out and running around like chickens with our heads chopped off !!!!

        • Yes perspective. Cons call homes in Irwin Cotler’s riding with patently false misinformation leading the speaker to declare that his rights as an MP were being violated. P. Van Loan foamed about his right to free speech. Liberals made robo calls in Guelph prior to the election date attacking Marty Burke as anti-choice. So what — that was allowed. Some organized group targeted Liberal voters on election day, claiming to be from Elections Canada, telling them there polls were moved. This was an illegal act of voter subversion. That you can’t or won’t see the difference between an illegal act and a legal, but reprehensible act is telling. 

          • You’re mistaken.

            I never claimed that the content of the advertising was what made it illegal. Using fake names and hiding your involvement is the problem. Doing that IS illegal according to Elections Canada.

            Nor have I ever claimed that calls from people claiming to be EC are not illegal. They are deeply problematic.

            I said we don’t know who is behind them.

            We do know one party that has confirmed they were behind calls in which people lie about their identity and do not disclose who they are coming from. But that party wasn’t the Conservatives. IT was the Liberals.  

            Its time to look at how many of the 31,000 complaints to EC were due to Liberal actions.

          • Actually, JD, we now have two parties that have confirmed they were behind calls in which people lie about their identity and do not disclose who they are calling from… See previous discussions about Irwin Cotler’s retirement and Peter van Loan’s freedom of speech.

          • @igarvin:disqus 

            i’m not sure what the relevent laws are for disclosure out of writ period and whether polling/voter idenfitication counts as advertising.

            But I fully take your point if you could provide more information on what rule was broken beyond any moral judgements on the rephrensibility of the calls.

          • JD

            You’re shifting the goalposts. I didn’t claim that the Cons had broken the law in the Cotler abomination. I agree with the Speaker that it was “reprehensible” but not necessarily illegal. There was a time when people didn’t do things that were reprehensible strictly on the basis that the threat of public disgrace was barrier enough. Oh well, no sense in getting all nostalgic about things like personal honour and a shared sense of morality.

            I was just pointing out that by your own criteria there are two parties that have recently admitted to making phone calls while hiding their identities.

            1)The Liberals made a true statement but under a false name. (Guelph)

            2)The Cons made false statements under a false name (Cotler)

            3)And the still undetermined perpetrators of the Fraudulent calls in Guelph made false statements, misrepresenting themselves as Elections Canada, in an attempt to committ Electoral Fraud.

            There are common elements in each incident, but they are not equivalent incidents.

          • @igarvin:disqus 

            The common element between the Cotler calls and the EC calls is that they both contained false information (retirement, polls moving). 

            It has nothing to do with lying about your identify or not disclosing who’s behind the calls.

            I get robo-polls from the NDP from time to time. They are internal party polls that sound just like a regular pollsters although Jack only questions give it away.

            The fact that the poll is coming from the NDP is never disclosed. No names/identity are ever given in the first place. 

            I believe this is standard operation procedure for internal polling/voter identification. 

            Nothing about it is immoral. My question to you is anything about it illegal ?

            As far as I know the only complaint about the Cotler calls was the notion that they were spreading around the idea he was retiring. 

        • So maybe now you’d like greater investigative powers for EC for the 2011 election? 

    • I’m sorry….I forgot that Cons have difficulty with English, and the meaning of words. They are very literal.

      Everything has to be explained in detail to them…repeatedly. Caveats thrown in on every comment. Routine conversational convention isn’t understood.

      ‘We’ always trips them up….and so does ‘real’.

      ‘Real women’, ‘real Canadians’….like everyone else wandering around is made of paper mache or plastic or something!

      The woman was doing a commercial…an ad….and she gave a real name. One that people could call her by, or track her down with.

      That doesn’t mean it’s her legal name for daily use in her own life.

      Think of her as an actress if it helps.

    • Interesting that Harper recruited another anti-choice candidate.  Amazing for someone who doesn’t want to open up the abortion debate, isn’t it? Is he just waiting till he has the numbers.


    There you are Aaron Wherry. Surely this link must be included in the week that was ?

    Lets review the facts:

    1) A Liberal campaign volunteer records a robocall using a fake name
    2) The Liberal campaign hides their involvement in the call
    3) The MP claims to have been told by elections Canada that the calls were legal.

    On what date did he speak to EC ? Which individual told him the calls were OK ?

    4) EC cannot confirm to have spoken to him.
    5) EC basically then contradicts him and says that yes, the calls were illegal.

    • I’m not too concerned with 1) but I am very concerned about the “oversight” of forgetting to put the party name on the call. $50,000 fine to the campaign, $20,000 to each individual involved in production of the illegal call, and a large scale local ad campaign by the MP confessing to infraction and apologizing for breaking electoral laws.

      Partisans, don’t let anyone away with anything. If you overlook the sins of your own team then you are consenting to the sins of the other team.

      • Let’s find out how many other ridings featured these stealth calls ok ? From all parties.

        I’m concered that someone at Liberal HQ cooked this up and we may have violations across Canada.

        If this is part of a national campaign to fool, lie to, confuse, and may I say defraud voters then this is very, very serious.

        I know there’s only evidence that it happened in one riding at the moment but we can always specualate without any information !!!

        We do know that there are 31,000 complaitns to EC across the country.

        31,000 !! Therefore Liberals = Guilty !

        • ‘Therefore Liberals=Guilty’?  I guess EC doesn’t even need to investigate, they should move to the penalty stage based on your analysis.

          • It was satire.

            I’m all for each and every complaint being investigated.

            But a lot of commentators around here have been throwing that number out as if its some magical word that indicates the guilt of the Conservatives and the vastness of this conspiracy.

            Jan don’t you know there’s been 31,000 complaints !!! How can you argue with THAT !

          • This is being handled by EC.  They will find out what happened, by all parties.  Nothing being said on this site or others will change what they find.  If your side is worried about thw PR war you should tell Dean Del Mastro to be quiet and say nothing more. 

  3. Wherry  Any thoughts on why you and your msm colleagues didn’t care about electoral fraud months ago when first reported back in late April, early May? Why doesn’t msm have a problem with electoral fraud until almost a year later when they can start taking directions from their Liberal chums?

    What is point of Canadian msm – election shenanigans were reported while they were occurring but it’s only now that our journos are talking about it. Why are our journos so keen to be Liberal syncophants and do they teach journos to be obsequious stenographers in j-school or does it just come naturally to them? 

    Canada would have better governance if we had fewer toadying Liberals in our msm and public servants were properly questioned.

  4. JD, you seem to be under the impression that the outcry about purported elections violations is part of a bona fide effort to uphold elections provisions, rather than a partisan attack against Conservatives in which Elections Canada is the tool of the moment.

    The liberals, and their abettors in the media, do not care a whiff about your issue JD.  They do not care a whiff about the possibility of false allegations to elections officials (a criminal offence by the way) egged on by calls by opposition parties to report false calls – a far more serious matter.   Nor do they in fact actually care about Robocalling going too far, as they themselves employ Robocalls with as much, or more, abandon as the other parties do.

    However, JD, you can’t take solace in the fact that Canadians are by and large fair minded people.  They see this for what it is: partisan gamesmanship.  They also see that the opposition appears wholly disinterest at the moment in issues such as the Iranian terrorist state going nuclear, or European inslovency – immediate threats that immediatly threaten all Canadians.

    The opposition is consumed with their partisan frenzy du jour.  You see it.  And average Canadians see it, just as they did leading up the last election in which Harper was accused of “destroying our democracy.” 

    • Correction to the above.  The opposition did not egg on reporting of false calls.  They egged on reporting of calls, in which in was reasonably forseeable in this highly charged partisan environment, that their most fervant supporters would do so falsely.

      • You’re forgetting, it seems, that it’s been the Conservative refrain that all concerns and any evidence should be brought to the attention of Elections Canada. They’ve been singing that same song for 2 weeks now. Calling people liars and smear mongers and partisan hacks out of the other side of their mouths is, I guess, their idea of contrasting themes.

        “C’mere, C’mere, C’mere, You! C’mere… Go way”

        • Conservatives are appropriately cooperating with elections Canada.

          It’s the opposition that are making this a daily issue in the house, for obvious partisan purposes.  

          • Politicians displaying partisanship, surely the apocalypse is at hand.

          • Actually Prescott, the assistant campaign manager, after talking to EC via telephone is now refusing to meet with them on the advice of his lawyer.

  5. You know Aaron, earlier this week when I asked why no mention of Hebert’s column that asked uncomfortable questions that might lead the focus away from the Conservatives, you said that you typically don’t link to the major columnists, but instead focus on news, and on less prominent things that you wanted to draw attention to. I said fair enough.

    We now have multiple news reports (JD has already identified one…there is another in the Post, and on CTV) that the Liberals have admitted to robocalls in Guelph which did not meet Elections Canada standards by obscuring the Liberal involvement in it in 2 different ways…by failing to identify that the calls were a message from the Liberals and by having a Liberal campaign volunteer use a fake name in the calls.

    We have news reports that the vast majority of the 31,000 and growing “complaints” to Elections Canada are actually “robo complaints”, spam-generated by the partisan left-leaning “”, thus strongly indicative of an astroturfing campaign.

    We have news reports from the guys who broke this story that 2 days before the election, before the first reports of these calls ever hit the news , the Conservative campaign was publicly warning of voter suppression robocalls targeting their voters, with spoofed caller id to make it look like their campaign, and suspecting the Liberals were behind it.

    All of this would be relevant news in the eyes of anyone who’s been following this story and is genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of it. And yet in your never-ending round the clock coverage of all things robocall news…you haven’t touched any of it.

    You told us of potential shenanigans in Joe Volpe’s riding, but were
    careful to avoid any mention of Joe Volpe’s own voluminous history with
    cheating, and all the while casting suspicion on the Conservative
    campaign, not indicating exactly how they could have corrupted the
    voters’ list, which is an Elections Canada responsibility.

    Aaron, I’m going to assume the above is a complete summary of your coverage…so I’ll say it again…if you’re going to provide wall to wall coverage, frigging DO IT man. If that’s the kind of job you pretend to do but actually refuse to, and are only interested in telling part of the story in a partisan way, why are you here? Pretending to be a journalist at Maclean’s? Why aren’t you off writing press releases for the Liberals or NDP? or blogging over at rabble?

    I don’t like voter suppression campaigns any more than anyone else does, but I like news suppression campaigns even less.

    • john, buddy, you’re losing it here.  You’re on some kind of tear, but every time you accuse him of something, you end up backtracking and apologizing.  I pointed out to you last week that Aaron Wherry writes a blog — opinion — and should be allowed to run it his way, and you agreed.  You posted this link just minutes ago asking him why he isn’t reporting on this Liberal robocalls in Guelph stuff.  But you posted it onto an article that looks back on the past week.  The news you want him to link to wasn’t known last week, so he could not possibly include it here.  And it’s the weekend — so maybe he is actually taking the day off.  Chill out, brother.  I imagine he will write about the Liberals or link to the news tomorrow, Monday morning, bright and early. 

      • I am sure every Con response tomorrow in QP will mention the Liberals non-identified calls in Guelph and Aaron will be reporting on it – call me psychic.

    • You find yourself in a unique circumstance, I think. The vast majority of the reading public has access to a great range of news sources and commentators. I can imagine it must be pretty frustrating to be limited to a single source, and one that you don’t trust at that! Very unfortunate.

      • Well lgarvin, as you said above…

        “Partisans, don’t let anyone away with anything. If you overlook the sins
        of your own team then you are consenting to the sins of the other team.”

        I’ve been preaching the same thing here for years. So I’m agreeing with your advice. I’m not letting the partisan that runs this blog overlook the sins of his own team(s), and I’m calling him out for failing to include it in his otherwise very comprehensive coverage of this story. Unless you had something else in mind?

        • No, nothing else in mind at all. I think it’s a good thing that you hold Mr. Wherry’s feet to the fire from time to time. But, just as you find Wherry’s single-mindedness a bit tiresome you can display the same trait yourself.

          You’ve latched onto Wherry as your symbol of everything that is wrong with the media. That’s fair enough, in my opinion, but you need to display the high standard of fairness that you are demanding of him.

          • I believe that I do. I call out the Conservatives when their behavior demands it. I called for Tony Clement, Christian Paradis, and Bev Oda all to be defeated in the last election (sadly, they weren’t). Aaron himself wondered if I was OK, after having given him credit (!) for pursuing the Conservative calls into Cotler’s riding, and for siding with Justin Trudeau when he, I thought somewhat justifiably, called Peter Kent a “piece of sh!t” in the HOC for a particularly ballsy statement.

            And as pointed out above, if I get my facts wrong when criticizing him, which I inadvertently do sometimes, as I don’t catch everything that Aaron covers, I’m man enough to admit it and to acknowledge my mistake.

            But there are some hugely important parts of the robocall story that are being suppressed not just by Aaron, but by others. I’m picking on Aaron specifically for this because a) he is so diligent at chronicling everything else that is going on with this story and the pattern of what he is omitting is disturbing, and  b) I have more respect for Maclean’s as a non-partisan source of information than for example the Star, the Globe, or the CBC; none of which I bother with anymore.

            No one in the media has picked up on leadnow’s astroturfing campaign except Sun. No one has followed up on the Maher-McGregor story that the Conservatives were warning of voter suppression calls being falsely perpetrated in their name in Guelph using spoofed caller ID, even before this story became national news. Why would Conservatives in Guelph go public with news of voter suppression 2 days before allegedly perpetrating it themselves? Why wouldn’t anyone who genuinely wants to get to the bottom of this story want to shine some sunlight on this?

          • Are you referring to Mr. Presscott’s calls?

    • The Lead Now’s campaign is a demand for a public inquiry.  How many times do you have to be told this?

      • Yes…and the distribution list for their petition for a public inquiry, up until a few days ago, included the commissioner of Elections Canada. And the number of signatories on that petition closely resembled 31000 at the time the media reported that number. How many times do YOU need to be told that?

        I’m sorry…but requests for a public inquiry are not complaints to elections canada that one received a robocall. It’s astroturfing. And it should be called out as such, instead of allowing people to mistakenly believe that 31,000 people received a robocall directing them to a fake polling station.

        • It is your side that has purposefully confusing this.  You have accused all these people of reporting robocalls, falsely, when all they’ve done is a sign a petition demanding an inquiry.  For God’s sake, start dealing straight up – all this crap isn’t helpng you. 

  6. Must be pandemoniom at Con HQ….they’re certainly having hysterics on here!  LOL

    • Sunday morning, coming down….

      • Yup, the rah rah rah is over, and reality is setting in!

    • It took longer than usual, but the talking points are now ready

      • LOL some of the points seem the worse for wear….done with a hangover and all.

  7. I find it odd that North America switches to Daylight Savings Time before Europe. And are they still malcontents in Sask or do they change clocks now? 

    It is time anarchy, and I don’t like! 

    • Well I’d prefer we stay on daylight savings all year round instead of this twice-yearly clock shuffle….but people get very strange about it.

      You’d think clock hands were sacred or something.

  8. I don’t mind Macleans having a local left wing partisan.

    Aaron Wherry plays his part well. So would Glen McGregor or Stephen Maher or anyone from the Star.

    But it would be kind of nice if there was more than 1 political blogger who updated on a regular basis and who had more right of centre opinions to offset AW

    • Partisan posters on here are always accusing the writers of political bias…and they’ve all been attacked for being whatever the commenter dislikes….it just varies from column to column.

      They’re used to it. Hazard of the job.

    • Are you jonesing for the job? 

      • Heaven’s no. Macleans willl know they’ve found a good blogger when there are an equal number of complaints saying that the blogger is right wing as there are people complaining that Wherry is left wing.

        It would provide good balance to the coverage here.

        • I don’t think any of them…Wherry, Wells, Coyne, Cosh, Steyn have missed being accused of pushing either the Libs or the Cons….happens on a regular basis.

          You’re just trying to ‘weight’ it for or to Wherry at the moment.

          In any case, this isn’t a news site…it’s a blog

          And if you don’t like what the blogs say….go read some other site instead of wasting everybody’s time.

          • I’m a Macleans customer. I actually pay for a dead tree subscription.

            I can offer any advice whatsoever on how to imrpove my customer experience.

            Cosh is libertarian. Steyn is a conservative. Coyne is a progressive conservative who doesn’t like labels and likes to be contrarian.

            Wells is a smart government technocrat.

            None of them post daily.

            Wherry is a blogger who links to articles or writes in such a way that they damage Conservatives in a non-objective fashion.

            As you say he’s a blogger and not a journalist.

            So why try to maintain the illusion of journalistic neutrality ?

          • Well I doubt any of those writers would agree with your political pigeon-holing of them…in fact they’ve said so

            They all post at different times depending on the job they do.

            Wherry does the daily parliament round, so his are daily….he is a journalist and does columns in the print mag as well…these are blog entries…two different things.

            I know there’s been a concerted effort lately to intimidate Wherry, but it’s not working…and you just sound like a whiner….a concern-troll. So give it a rest.

          • I don’t think anybody intimidates Aaron Wherry.

            He’s been at this for years and people have been making similiar complaints for years.

            I don’t join in those complaints. I appreciate a diversity of views and think the left wing in this country has a right to have their thinking reflected in coverage of events.

            I do complain when left wing views are tax payer funded (the CBC).

            And I do complain when there is a lack of other views to off set left wing views and lead to debate.

            My point is that i’d love it if Macleans got additional blogging content. 

            I in no way mean to suggest that Wherry stop what he is doing.

            And yes, I am aware that Wherry does original reporting from time to time instead of just blogging. Apologies for suggesting otherwise.

          •  @yahoo-K5XAITELSHKETDEDYIH6U5AF54:disqus 

            ‘Cosh is libertarian. Steyn is a conservative. Coyne is a progressive conservative who doesn’t like labels and likes to be contrarian. ‘

            Well, if that was true…then that’s heavy on the rightwing side of the scale.

            ‘Wells is a smart government technocrat.’

            ‘Technocracy’ doesn’t come into this at all….but I see you have assigned no party bias to Wells…..even though I’ve rarely read an article or blog post that doesn’t get him labelled pro-Lib or pro-Con….often in the same comment section!

            So even if Wherry IS left….and I’ve never found him so…then he would be here for the ‘balance’ you claim to want. 

            Macleans has new bloggers now btw, so you can spend time debating if each of THEM are left or right….that should keep you busy.


          • For God’s sake it’s a blog.  You represent your parties neurotic insecurity.  Get over it.

    • You have Brian Lilley all to yourself.

  9. I know it might seem that I’m tethered to this blog 24 hours per day, seven days per week, but that’s only 95% true. I periodically allow myself a bathroom break. And I sometimes sleep.

    Guelph links coming bright and early on Monday morning. At the top of a longer post about robocalls, innocent and otherwise. I believe the story of the Valeriote campaign call broke Friday night. I only this evening had a chance to sort through it.