Senior Tory spokesman suspended

[August1991]

He wan't a candidate, and I don't see how pointing out someone's political affiliation constitutes "taking shots" at a grieving father.

Argus, do you have such a tin ear in the real world?

A grieving father who has lost a soldier son is a third rail issue in the political world. I know about Cindy Sheehan and what Ann Coulter thinks about this but it remains that in Canada, a father whose son died in Afghanistan should not be the object of criticsm or innuendo. In political terms, it's counter-productive. It's also simple decency.

Edited September 12, 2008 by August1991

[Visionseeker]

Riding the bus this evening in the Nation's Capital, I overheard two men in uniform:

Unifrom one: "Forget suspended, he should've been fired."

Uniform two: "Or maybe shot."

Harper has slowly been losing friends in the military for some time now. Sparrow might have just thrown gasoline on that trend.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Visionseeker

[Smallc]

According to CTV news, this guy was also responsible for the pooping puffin.

[Visionseeker]

Argus, do you have such a tin ear in the real world?

A grieving father who has lost a soldier son is a third rail issue in the political world. I know about Cindy Sheehan and what Ann Coulter thinks about this but it remains that in Canada, a father whose son died in Afghanistan should not be the object of criticsm or innuendo. In political terms, it's counter-productive. It's also simple decency.

Hear, Hear!

[Argus]

The Liberals are much the same as the Conservatives with the possible exception of their support base being citizen orientated instead of business orientated which is why the last vestige of Liberal government got the federal finances in order and eliminated the deficit financing method. Harper seems intent upon handing out corporate welfare at tax payer expense, witness the 50 million handed out to GM and moments later the company closed the doors on yet another auto plant. That was a business decision without doubt, and yet it smells of special interests doesn't it?

I think Harper and the Conservatives are philosophically opposed to corporate handouts - which, btw, if you bother to check, were a mainstay of Liberal government policy over the last 13 years, and for which the Liberals got massive "donations" from corporate interests. I'm hoping that if he gets in with a majority Harper will find the strength of character to tone down those sorts of payments and put in place longlasting rules and regulations to keep them in check. Right now I think the money they're giving out is designed more to buy them votes than to please any kind of corporate interests. Their donation base, their support base, is among ordinary Canadians, not on Bay Street, and they don't need or really get much money from the corporate sector.

Again, I will support the NDP with the hope that they will do as they say, they at least are all about the little guy.

If the little guy is dirt poor, or gay, or black, or native, or disabled, perhaps. But they see people like me, a white, straight, middle class homeowner, as their ideological enemy, and a source of funding for the previously named group to right all the "wrongs" committed against them. The only thing I could expect from the NDP would be to take away my money and send me to re-education camp. No thanks.

[Argus]

And set a timetable.

There is no question in my mind that had Martin been re-elected he would have extended the mission. And your party would have supported the mission without hesitation.

The Tories have said timetables are surrender. They are not. They let our allies know that we are not a permanent force and that benchmarks need to be set to achieve mission success. This idea that we will endlessly fighting there is not sustainable. The Afghans and the our allies have to step up do their part.

Timetables are a surrender as it lets the enemy know he just has to hold out for so long, and then we'll give up and go home. I have a certain measure of contempt for our "allies" or most of them, but just because they're cowardly shirkers doesn't mean we ought to be as well. I'm opposed to leaving in 2011, but I recognize the political firestorm this mission has become because of the Liberals seeing it as an opportunity to score political points.

[Argus]

So the Tories assume the father of one of Canada's soldiers killed two years ago is only using his son as fodder for crass political plugs for the Liberals, is that correct?

The decision by the Liberals was one taken by the organization as a whole, to oppose the very mission they themselves had recently put in place. It was done for crass, political reasons, and without regard to the well-being of Canada, Canadian troops, Afghanistan, or our allies.

The Liberal organization has always been single-minded in its determination to attain and hold power regardless of the cost to Canada or Canadians. The people in charge of that party quite simply could not care less whether something they do or advocate harms Canada, so long as it's seen as politically advantageous. They are not immoral, but ammoral.

The statements made about that father came from one backroom worker and were repudiated by the party immediately. Quite some difference.

[M.Dancer]

If people really knew just how ignorant these potential conservative MP's really are, Harper wouldn't even be able to get a minority government much less have the opportunity to damage Canada with a majority.

Bedard, a former radio host, proposed at the time of the 1990 Oka crisis that the army use force to lift Mohawk Warrior barricades, even if that meant as many as 150 deaths.

This week he told Quebec City's Le Soleil daily newspaper that, "maybe we should have done it because 17 years later, it's still the same."

Ummm ..yeah.

[Wild Bill]

So the Tories assume the father of one of Canada's soldiers killed two years ago is only using his son as fodder for crass political plugs for the Liberals, is that correct?

Be fair, jdobbin! This was hardly party policy. ONE individual got carried away and has paid a price for it. It's obvious he won't get off Harper's crap list for a long time.

It seems whenever one Reformer or now Tory goofs up some folks brand the entire party. There's a word for such action.

It also seems that when a Liberal pulls a Hedy Fry it's always dismissed as "it was only that one person and they made a human mistake anyway."

There's a word for that as well.

Not that I'm accusing YOU of being that biased, jdobbin but we both know it tends to happen as an almost universal rule, from both sides of the political spectrum.

As support for my argument, I put forth the entire inventory of message posts over at "rubble.ca". You might find it buried sometimes under all the vitriol and profanity but there's enough there to simply ooze through the entire board.

[jdobbin]

The decision by the Liberals was one taken by the organization as a whole, to oppose the very mission they themselves had recently put in place. It was done for crass, political reasons, and without regard to the well-being of Canada, Canadian troops, Afghanistan, or our allies.

The Liberal organization has always been single-minded in its determination to attain and hold power regardless of the cost to Canada or Canadians. The people in charge of that party quite simply could not care less whether something they do or advocate harms Canada, so long as it's seen as politically advantageous. They are not immoral, but ammoral.

The justification for what the Harper team did is a little over the top. They did what they did to this father because all Liberals are amoral and the father of a dead soldier is just another example.

The statements made about that father came from one backroom worker and were repudiated by the party immediately. Quite some difference.

The hyperpartisan stand is not one Tory backroom person. It is a whole team in place. Probably why after the first week the Tories have pulled their website bag of tricks.

[M.Dancer]

So the Tories assume the father of one of Canada's soldiers killed two years ago is only using his son as fodder for crass political plugs for the Liberals, is that correct?

Yes and of course the Liberals believe that Oka could have been solved by killing 100s

Bedard, a former radio host, proposed at the time of the 1990 Oka crisis that the army use force to lift Mohawk Warrior barricades, even if that meant as many as 150 deaths.

This week he told Quebec City's Le Soleil daily newspaper that, "maybe we should have done it because 17 years later, it's still the same."

Now in retrospect, isn't your comment a tad silly?

[Argus]

The justification for what the Harper team did is a little over the top. They did what they did to this father because all Liberals are amoral and the father of a dead soldier is just another example

Oh please. Is there no deeper into the gutter you can crawl with your absurd posturing? You know very well this was the action of one man and not approved by teh party. These kinds of posts are why so many dismiss you as nothing more than a party apparatchik without thought or words of your own.

[jdobbin]

There is no question in my mind that had Martin been re-elected he would have extended the mission. And your party would have supported the mission without hesitation.

I don't know how you can assume anything like that except as a result of hyperpartisan thinking. The Liberals set a timetable and hand off date for our troops in Kosovo and stuck to it. The overall mission remained but our part in that conflict was complete as Europe took over more of that function.

Timetables are a surrender as it lets the enemy know he just has to hold out for so long, and then we'll give up and go home. I have a certain measure of contempt for our "allies" or most of them, but just because they're cowardly shirkers doesn't mean we ought to be as well. I'm opposed to leaving in 2011, but I recognize the political firestorm this mission has become because of the Liberals seeing it as an opportunity to score political points.

Then you must be reconsidering your vote for the Tories or planning on sitting out the election rather than seeing soldiers put in danger for Harper's decision, correct?

[jdobbin]

Oh please. Is there no deeper into the gutter you can crawl with your absurd posturing? You know very well this was the action of one man and not approved by teh party. These kinds of posts are why so many dismiss you as nothing more than a party apparatchik without thought or words of your own.

And your personal attacks are why people assume you follow the Harper tactic of attack, attack, attack. The posts are generally filled with so much bile, anger and hatred that it is a wonder that doctors don't diagnose an ulcer just from reading through it.

[jdobbin]

Be fair, jdobbin! This was hardly party policy. ONE individual got carried away and has paid a price for it. It's obvious he won't get off Harper's crap list for a long time.

My reply is to one poster who seems to think the response was justified because he believes the Liberals are amoral enough to point the father of a dead soldier in the direction of Harper to criticize the timetable.

Not that I'm accusing YOU of being that biased, jdobbin but we both know it tends to happen as an almost universal rule, from both sides of the political spectrum.

I am partisan but I'm not claiming the Liberals are headed for victory or even trying to spin this story to that effect. I'm saying that the war room for the Tories is hyperpartisan and thinks nothing of using mocking pictures or discrediting people by trying to link them to the Liberals.

Even Harper stated today that he was reining in his war room. When you go from gaffe to gaffe, you know you have left the team too much latitude to trip up the campaign.

[Bryan]

And your personal attacks are why people assume you follow the Harper tactic of attack, attack, attack. The posts are generally filled with so much bile, anger and hatred that it is a wonder that doctors don't diagnose an ulcer just from reading through it.

That defense is getting old. A plain expression of the facts of your M.O. does not constitute an attack. You've had a couple of lucid posts as of late, but frequently your posts are little more than a passive-aggressive attempt to antagonize people for the express purpose of seeing them get upset so that you can pretend to claim the high ground.

[jdobbin]

That defense is getting old. A plain expression of the facts of your M.O. does not constitute an attack. You've had a couple of lucid posts as of late, but frequently your posts are little more than a passive-aggressive attempt to antagonize people for the express purpose of seeing them get upset so that you can pretend to claim the high ground.

The plain expression of the facts though is that the Harper team in the war room have been acting off script or somehow seem to have approval to be more negative. Harper said so himself this morning that the war room was acting out and since he is the boss, he has to be responsible for getting them under control.

How I antagonized someone to the point that they say this is a gutter response and that they personalize the post to me is over the top.

Edited September 12, 2008 by jdobbin

[thermo]

Riding the bus this evening in the Nation's Capital, I overheard two men in uniform:

Unifrom one: "Forget suspended, he should've been fired."

Uniform two: "Or maybe shot."

Harper has slowly been losing friends in the military for some time now. Sparrow might have just thrown gasoline on that trend.

From wanting to match them into Iraq, to refusing to lower the flag for fallen troops, to barring any media from funeral/return ceremonies - I can tell you the people I know in the military are not exactly Harpers biggest fans at this point!

[M.Dancer]

From wanting to match them into Iraq, to refusing to lower the flag for fallen troops, to barring any media from funeral/return ceremonies - I can tell you the people I know in the military are not exactly Harpers biggest fans at this point!

Media at funerals is left up to the familiy of the fallen. Funerals are private times and I would not want to see them at funerals uninvited.

[Moonbox]

And your personal attacks are why people assume you follow the Harper tactic of attack, attack, attack. The posts are generally filled with so much bile, anger and hatred that it is a wonder that doctors don't diagnose an ulcer just from reading through it.

Attack attack attack is something Harper learned through two elections where he was made out to be a dangerous villain with the secret agenda of turning Canada into baby USA.

The Liberal campaigns of 2004 and 2006 were just as bad if not worse and I'd love to hear you argue otherwise.

Yes, some of the adds and comments by the CPC have been assinine, but that happens with every party. We can go through Liberal foot in mouths if you want too, but that's not the point.

It's HIGHLY suspect of you to be going on about CPC mud slinging when this is exactly what your Liberals did last election.

To be honest, I would like to see a campaign on the issues themselves. Unfortunately, I think the people on this forum are an exception in at least that we try to stay informed on the issues. Most Canadians don't know anything about anything when it comes to the government. With the ignorance of the average voter, all you're left to campaign on is rhetoric and half-truths.

CPC attack adds have shown Dion to be a poor leader. His record hasn't been impressive.

[thermo]

Media at funerals is left up to the familiy of the fallen. Funerals are private times and I would not want to see them at funerals uninvited.

Yes. I know that. But Harper started off by banning them outright. After a lot of outcry he decided to revise his position.

[White Doors]

From wanting to match them into Iraq, to refusing to lower the flag for fallen troops, to barring any media from funeral/return ceremonies - I can tell you the people I know in the military are not exactly Harpers biggest fans at this point!

My guess would be that 80% of current and former Canadian armed forces personnell would vote for Harper and the rest of the 20% would be divided up amongst the rest.

[capricorn]

It also seems that when a Liberal pulls a Hedy Fry it's always dismissed as "it was only that one person and they made a human mistake anyway."

You mean like this?

Liberal MP Robert Thibault was forced to apologize Aug. 12 for making discriminatory statements about Conservative Senator Marjory LeBreton, in which he told the Hill Times Aug. 11 she was an "idiot" and "should go back to making tea for Brain Mulroney and stay out of serious people's business."

So where does that leave women in the Liberal party?

Toronto Centre MP Bob Rae said during his Grimsby stop at the Pumphouse Aug. 14 that the comments don't represent the Liberal party, and are only the views of Mr. Thibault.

"I think the Liberal party's record on women's issues speaks for itself, and our record on equality speaks for itself. I'll leave that as being far more significant than any haphazard comments by individuals," he told the News.

http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news/article/199733

MPs are not individuals. Individuals have more class than many of our MPs.

Thibault has spouted some gems, including this recent one.

Liberal MP Robert Thibault, whose West Nova riding is being targeted by the Conservatives, said Nova Scotians aren’t buying Mr. Harper’s image makeover, which has him wearing sweaters and projecting a nicer image.

"What I’m getting from Nova Scotians is they still don’t trust him," he said. "I don’t think a few sweaters are going to make a difference. I think somebody said you can put a sweater on a pig, but it’s still a pig."

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1078355.html

Trust Thibault to confuse sweaters with lipstick.

[jdobbin]

Attack attack attack is something Harper learned through two elections where he was made out to be a dangerous villain with the secret agenda of turning Canada into baby USA.

Harper said he would do it differently this election but as Andrew Cohen said yesterday, he really can't help himself.

The Liberal campaigns of 2004 and 2006 were just as bad if not worse and I'd love to hear you argue otherwise.

The fear campaign fails as often as it works. I thought the Liberals were stupid to try and launch that sort of campaign in 2006 and should have concentrated on a clear message on the issues. Their last campaign had the air of desperation in it when it was not all that clear the Tories would win at the onset.

Yes, some of the adds and comments by the CPC have been assinine, but that happens with every party. We can go through Liberal foot in mouths if you want too, but that's not the point.

My issue was the justification for it which some people seem to still be arguing here.

It's HIGHLY suspect of you to be going on about CPC mud slinging when this is exactly what your Liberals did last election.

You probably haven't seen enough of my posts in various threads about how stupid the negative campaign was and how incompetent it was.

To be honest, I would like to see a campaign on the issues themselves. Unfortunately, I think the people on this forum are an exception in at least that we try to stay informed on the issues. Most Canadians don't know anything about anything when it comes to the government. With the ignorance of the average voter, all you're left to campaign on is rhetoric and half-truths.

CPC attack adds have shown Dion to be a poor leader.

The attack ads have shown the Tories use mocking pictures. Up until this past week, it didn't move them in the polls.

His record hasn't been impressive.

And this is why Dion will lose.

Harper attacks when he should be standing by his record outlining some innovative ideas. I haven't seen too much yet in that regard. Innovative is allowing 49% ownership in an airline and 100% of uranium (except to China, of course)?

[thermo]

My guess would be that 80% of current and former Canadian armed forces personnell would vote for Harper and the rest of the 20% would be divided up amongst the rest.

perhaps former. i'd say, knowing people actually currently serving, that the Libs have the advantage with the enlisted.