Great moments in apology -

Great moments in apology


Martha Hall Findlay owns up to an improper birthday invitation. Ujjal Dosanjh admits inappropriate use of “the Twitter.”


Great moments in apology

  1. Is this a joke? You point out apologies for two trivial transgressions and you ignore the apology for Carolyn Bennett's disgusting flyer sent into native communities?

    I ask again…where the hell are you on this? Do you believe in decency and decorum, or do you believe only in slamming the Conservatives for lapses in that area?

    And to those who roll their eyes when we conservatives bring up bias in the media I ask…where the hell is the rest of the media on this? If a Conservative had done this, this would be headline news. If a Cabinet minister did this it would be grounds for dismissal.

    • I agree. If a Conservative had apologized for something they did wrong, rather than blame it on the Liberals or a staffer, it most certainly would have worthy of multiple day front page headlines.

      • No doubt. Such a very rare occurrence would be the stuff of news articles and opinion pieces for weeks, if not months.

        • Gerald Keddy apologized just a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps you missed it?

          • To be fair, it took him awhile to agree he should apologize at all…or should I say it took the PMO?

          • Well, we all want to be fair, eh? I'm sure if he'd apologized properly then everyone would have been rushing to congratulate him for it, and the headlines would indeed have been full of the news… for weeks.

  2. Yeah we get it Wherry, the fake sincerity in these apologies about tweets and invites and other trivial matter is suppose to make us feel that all MP`s should spend their time making scandalous allegations one day and apologizing the next day.

    Turning a seasonal flu epidemic, where people are mostly suffering from anxiety, into a political football would be a good place for the next Liberal apology.

    Also, if you don`t post about the flyer Bennett sent out to households connecting bodybags and gov`t health policy, then one can assume you have lost all credibility. If that`s the case, all clear-thinking people should choose to leave this sorry site to you and your ilk.

    • William, I urge you to build your case and present your views as eloquently and persuasively as you can. I may not agree with everything I read in the posts, but I give most of them due consideration.
      I understand your anger (quite frankly, the conduct of the current government makes me very angry at times), but I realize that there are always viewpoints to explore, as well as ones to dismiss. Such is the vortex of political opinion.

      Stop stamping your feet and get typing with your fingers. Post links to the offending flyer. Persuade me
      I like to think that most of the dialogue here is head and shoulders above the ooze that seeps out of the HOC.

      • Link to the flyer is here

        • Yeah, after looking at the flyer it seems preposterous that Bennett would have the gall to complain about decorum.

        • If this is what the powers that be are deeming effective campaigning, we are all in trouble.

          That is one ugly flyer

  3. Let's not forget Hedy Fry saying that MP's deserve their own special H1N1 clinic. The rest of us should wait in line behind Hedy because her job involves shaking hands. Wow.

    Where are you on this, Wherry?

    Check out the video:

    • So Hedy Fry says MPs deserve their own H1Ni clinic? What priority category do they fall in? Children under five?

    • Hey, remember when Hedy apologized to Prince George for slurring them all as a bunch of cross-burning racists?

      She apologized for blaming the wrong BC community. She insisted that crosses were actually still burning in some unspecified BC community, just not Prince George.

    • Actually I am willing to cut Hedy a bit of slack on this one. She's right. MP's shake an awful lot of hands.

  4. If that`s the case, all clear-thinking people should choose to leave this sorry site to you and your ilk.

    Sigh, if only you "clear-thinking people" would actually do that.

  5. I ask again…where the hell are you on this?

    That's a fair question, Aaron. Why haven't you covered everything that happened today. Don't you realize people like john g can, for some unknown reason, only get news about the days events from you.

  6. This is why adolescents should be allowed on the Internet. Adolescence nowadays means anyone under 40. Quite possibly 50.

    A better question is what directive prevents Aaron Wherry from every responding to the bilious attacks from right wingers here?

  7. Er…that should be "not be allowed."

  8. OK—let`s make a deal—-give Wherry until the end of the day to post about Bennett and the bodybags—–if he chooses not to, then those that choose to remain can snuggle up to you and your avatar.

    • This is not a partnership or a business transaction. If Wherry makes this place intolerable for you then go ahead and leave. I think he's a little slanted myself but – here's the important bit – I don't have to read him if I don't want to.

      Your ultimatum is kinda bizarre.

      • Kinda bizarre, and kinda par for the course.

    • Are you issuing an ultimatum? Why should Wherry post what you want him to? And will you really stay away from here, or just change your moniker?

      For the record — I agree that Bennett's flyer was way over the line.

  9. "give Wherry until the end of the day to post about Bennett and the bodybags"

    But what about the apologies from Conservatives for calling their adversaries Taliban-huggers, traitors, terrorists and pedophiles?

  10. End of the day? Bennett's apology was issued yesterday afternoon. It's already too little too late.

    Wherry rails on and on about Giant Novelty Cheque gate, but doesn't bother to notice when 18 Liberal MPs are cited for ethics violations in using their parliamentary websites to solicit donations?

    Wherry rails on and on about decency and decorum in politics, but fail to notice disgraceful flyers sent into native communities by the Liberals, or the Liberal pink book which suggests that Harper is responsible for escalating violence against women?

    I think we're long past questions or assumptions about credibility. Wherry deserves every bit of the scorn that is heaped on Stephen Taylor for partisanship when he posts here. I can't see how Wherry is any less partisan than Stephen Taylor is.

    • Wherry…railing?

      Tell me something, is there more than one voice in your head?

    • I can't see how Wherry is any less partisan than Stephen Taylor is.

      I'll explain it to you then. Aaron Wherry reports events that occur (mostly by cutting and pasting) and on occasion does formulate a few opinions of his own.

      Stephen Taylor on the other hand, is a member of a conservative organization and party, participates in conservative events, writes long articles in defense of the Conservative Party and on some occasions has actually acted as an unofficial PR agent for the party.

      • Correction.

        Aaron reports only those "events that occur" which make the Conservatives look bad, or Liberals look good. If it makes the Liberals look really bad, like Carolyn Bennett's flyer, he sweeps it under the rug and pretends it didn't happen (along with the rest of our media it would seem), even though he regularly pillories such behaviour from the Conservatives. If he reports on, say, allegations of partisanship buried in an analysis of RinC funding going disproportionately to Conservative ridings in Ontario, he fails to follow the story to the end and point out when the analysis he links to is thoroughly discredited by people who know better.

        That may be typical behaviour for a partisan, but it really should not be acceptable for a journalist; even an opinion journalist I would agrue has a professional duty not to mislead readers like this.

        • That may be typical behaviour for a partisan…

          You're confusing partisan and bias. Stephen Taylor is a partisan. Aaron Wherry is simply biased.

          • Kind of depends on what your bias is motivated by; it's a fine line I guess. But I'm glad we at least agree on that much.

    • Look Wherry does not prtend to be neutral. It's his blog and we all know his biases. So we learn to live with them. That being said it is extraordinary that he passes on the forced Bennett apology only a day after he blogs incessantly on how bad people feel about her feelings beinng hurt by Tory hecklers. It's like he's doing it to undermine his own credibility further.

  11. Conservatives are comically sensitive to perceived slights in the media and react to critical coverage as if holy water had been sprinkled on someone possessed; then invent conspiracies of media bias etc. (some even delve further into the delusion, and explain this journalism bias as offshoots of a broader bias among journalism school professors, universities in general, the public service, the courts, etc.)
    Don't bother trying to placate them, Wherry. They will never be satisfied or consider anything 'fair' unless it's cleared by their pwn PR department.

    • It's not comical at all. You see their ginned up faux outrage everywhere you turn these days.

      It's dreary.


  13. I will say that conservatives do need to work on their civility.

    I however do not think the liberal commentators on this site have any possible to claim that they are civil. I can't think of anyone whose politics I know on this site whom I'd call a gentleman… well except for Lord Kitchener's Own and Crit-Reasoning.

    • Are you talking about civility or decency? Or maybe you're thinking of manners?

      The most brutal, vicious unfair attacks can be articulated in the mildest, passive-aggressive language possible. And a lot of this comes as a result of four years of attack ad and ten-percenters and other partisan propaganda paid for by taxpayers, on top of a campaign of vilification the Conservatives have carried out in Parliament.

      Besides, where did civility get Stephane Dion? How is civility working out for Ignatieff?

      • I find you to be particularly uncivil in most of your posts.

        • Call it "proportional response."

          • Or you know you can realize you are part of the problem for raising the temperature around here, and look to your own conduct. Good manners are their own reward.

          • Gosh, I sure do love been scolded by a 12 year-old.

          • Tut-tut, Foreigner. That's most uncivil, my dear fellow. Good manners and common decency are the hallmark of every gentleman. You, sir, are an insolent boor.

    • I would venture that a good number of commenters on this site could not be called "gentlemen". Just not for the reasons you cite.

    • I'm trying to remember when TedTylerEzro ever contributed anything value-added to any thread here. Facts, figures? Nope. Wit? Hardly. Just ranting about religion, when the subject comes up, and cheap jibes against "the left." Exactly the kind of commenter who picks fights he can't win and then huffs about ungentlemanly conduct.

  14. any possible claim to being civil rather.

  15. Liberal MPs apologized Wednesday for distributing a household flyer that attacks the government's handling of H1N1 among aboriginals with the slogan “No vaccines, just body bags.”

    The flyer, mailed as a message from Liberal health critic Dr. Carolyn Bennett, features a picture of body bags in a lab and a sick aboriginal child.

    Grand Chief Ron Evans of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs told a parliamentary committee the flyer was “very disturbing…it's really troubling to our people.”

  16. Whoops. I jst read the reply below. I guess my point had already been made…..

  17. Far be it for me to disagree with those here who are far more knowledgeable about political issues than me, but Bennett's flyer that went to households in a community that has a higher chance than most of having H1N1 deaths goes far beyond the juvenile pranks and knee-jerk comments of the other guys. IMHO it was stunningly ignorant and insensitive. Her apology really was too little too late because her action in sending such an obviously partisan message into those households was planned and prepared ahead of time – she had time to think about what she was doing before she did it. I had hoped that the Liberals were above such Harperesque tactics. Guess not. To say that I'm disappointed would be a gross understatement. I'm also embarrassed that I wrote earlier that she is competent and articulate.

    • Knick. That is very well said. I'd like to see higher standards on all sides of the House. Your comments deserve to be read widely.

  18. Where are all the apologies from Conservatives for calling their adversaries Taliban-huggers, traitors, terrorists and pedophiles?

    • It's a winless fight Foreigner….the same ones, day in day out, turn a "blind eye" when it comes to the Cons. Tunnel vision and double-standards is what they live by.

      • You don't have to win. You just to keep repeating the same talking point. over and over again.

        • A refreshing display of honesty, Foreigner, congratulations.

  19. Like I said, I had hoped that the Liberals had higher standards than the Harperites.

    • All that does is get you accused of being an elitist.

      • Stunts like this flyer raise doubts about whether the Liberal Party has any standards at all. The flyer is disgusting, even to Liberal supporters.

  20. Frankly,, I don't know who's worse. The coarse Conservatives or the scolding manner police.

  21. I’m thinking it would be nice if we could have a “Backwards Wednesday” around here one of these days.

    Let’s designate a day where all the usual suspects around here have to defend their opposites It might be fun to have the “Tory Trolls” defend the stupidity of Liberal actions, while the “Liberal Lackeys” defend the stupidity of the Conservative actions.

    Really guys, do you even begin to understand how inane this all is?

  22. C'mon, don't shoot the messenger! ;-)

    • Well, Mr. Gentleman, I cannot deny you your title, eminently deserved; but if TedTylerEzro is imagining that you're meek and reserved (the typical Christianist definition of a "gentleman": apparently they're supposed to ressemble St. Francis) he's got the wrong standard — speaking as someone who's scrubbed down your boxing ring a few times. : )

      • Heh – I can't argue with that. I certainly fall short of the Franciscan standard of meekness and gentleness. Like you, I'm too much of a pugilist. I've scrubbed down your boxing ring a few times myself – it's stained with the blood of countless Steynettes and social conservatives. ;-)

  23. That flyer is no worse than many of the 10%ers the conservatives send out. Didn't they sat Gilles Duceppe was feeding children to child molestors?