Liberals Falsely Slander Harper: Communion Host

[jdobbin]

well, of course! In the absence of knowledge of "whom to name", just cast a wide net... and make sure to emphasize it must be a Liberal conspiracy launched by wascally Liberals, intent on undermining Conservatives - intent on showcasing Harper as the bumbling redneck (he is).

What a bunch of clowns they are.

Here is how most people were introduced to the story:

http://www.windsorstar.com/Life/Harper+acc...0777/story.html

Monsignor Brian Henneberry, vicar general and chancellor in the Diocese of Saint John, says a parishioner approached him in the days following the funeral and "expressed concern" that the prime minister accepted the host during the funeral mass, but then slipped it into his pocket instead of eating it.

Tories denied it right away and said it was Liberals right from the beginning that were making up the story. Some have even named names lately although the lawsuits should quickly have some climb down from their high horse.

In the absence of not knowing what happened, people started looking at the Youtube video. They are still going to it. If it was a TV show, it would be among the most popular for the month of July.

The newspaper has retracted the story but now Tories think they can get mileage by fanning the idea of it being a Liberal conspiracy. Well, don't be shy, name who you think was responsible. Don't be cowards.

[jdobbin]

How many times has Ignatieff (the Flake) threatened an election?

How many times has Harper (the Bully) asked for one?

I wondered whether Ignatieff has made any remark about Harper and Catholic communion.

Why should he? He never said anything about it from the beginning and other MPs from the Liberal party such as Dominic Leblanc didn't think it was an issue to accept communion in the Church. No Liberal MP ever suggested that Harper pocketed the wafer.

I'll bet that if or when Ignatieff deigns to refer to this scandal, he will take the high road, so-called statesman approach. Ignatieff will be the picture of open-minded reasonableness.

This is the standard Liberal political method. Unnamed, underling Liberal activists launch the accusation and then top Liberals step in, are magnanimous, generous and understanding.

Name the activist.

It seems to be the standard Tory political method to suggest that there is a conspiracy out to get them and that the Liberals masterminded it all.

I'm waiting for Ignatieff's pronouncement - we can call it papal bull.

Let Ignatieff ask for the names.

I think that is the domain of the Tories to ask for names.

You seem to know who it is already. Why not reveal who the shadowy strategist is?

Edited July 30, 2009 by jdobbin

[Keepitsimple]

What a bunch of clowns they are.

........

The newspaper has retracted the story but now Tories think they can get mileage by fanning the idea of it being a Liberal conspiracy. Well, don't be shy, name who you think was responsible. Don't be cowards.

Dobbin, every now and then, it's just like somebody steals your login/password because all this junk starts spewing out trying to deflect any criticism of the Liberals. Nobody knows yet who is responsible for feeding the false information that caused the Publisher and Editor of the newspaper to change the reporters' story before it went to print. All we know is that the Publisher and Editor have been disciplined, if not removed completely from their jobs. There's no need for threats of sueing people or calling people cowards for not naming people. Nobody knows at this this point who is actually behind it. It's reasonable speculation by Fife, supposedly backed up by sources, that the Liberals are behind it. I think we'll just have to wait and see how the story plays out. It was interesting to see that The Star had nothing to say on the retraction and the firings except for one crummy lttle line in an unrelated story. They certainly got a lot of mileage out of the original "story", as did the Liberals. The bigger story is the front-page retraction and the firing of a Publisher and Editor of a major newspaper.....but The Star chose to ignore it all. But Dobbin......forget about sueing and the childish "coward" remarks - lets see how it plays out.

[August1991]

I think we'll just have to wait and see how the story plays out.

True.

And Michael Ignatieff, the federal Liberal leader, has said nothing. What a flake.

[lictor616]

Stephen Harper was accused of putting a communion host in his pocket. This story, repeated endlessly, originated with the Saint John Telegraph Journal. Harper strongly denied the story.

Subsequently, the Telegraph Journal fired its editor, suspended its publisher, corrected the story and offered an apology on its front page:

It is worth pointing out that the Irving family owns the Telegraph Journal and its suspended publisher was Jamie Irving. Moreover, the Irving family did not receive recent federal ship building contracts.

CP

Robert Fife of CTV now states that the Liberal Party was behind this original story:Steve Janke

-----

The sad thing is that this story fits well with the way the federal Liberal Party operates. While there are any number of people who want to demonize Harper, this is precisely the kind of tactics that the Liberals have used.

Moreover, this scandal points out the connection between certain companies and wealthy individuals (Power Corporation and Desmarais, Irving).

I have no doubt that the Liberals are going to deny this allegation strongly.

There are few beasts as violent as a cornered Liberal.

hence their name: LIEberals

[capricorn]

Someone obviously fed the item to them. I think it would be best if the Liberals outted whom ever it was rather than wait for the mud to be racked and discovered when they are no longer able to manage the discovery.

A couple of bloggers are intent on unmasking whoever urged the Telegraph Journal to add unsubstantiated facts to the original story. The Liberals are aware that these sleuths are quite skillful at uncovering information potentially harmful to them, just as the Conservatives are aware of the existence of Liberal friendly, resourceful amateur info diggers.

ITQ: Did you, in any way, suggest to the paper — via its editors, or publisher — that they look into the question of what happened to the communion wafer?

WK: I did not, in any way, suggest that story to the Telegraph Journal or any other media person. I in fact do not know anyone at the T-J, at all, and I do not know the former publisher or editor in particular.

---

Just a quick note on the third question — the one about whether he had any prior knowledge that a story would be coming out — to (I hope) preempt any new conspiracy theorizing, ITQ should probably add that it’s not unusual at all for rumours of imminent stories to hit the Hill berryvine. Journalists — and politicians, and staffers, and everyone else — are human, and as such, we talk. We don’t usually trade specifics, for obvious reasons — don’t want to get scooped by the competition — but the idea that Kinsella would have heard something in advance does not, by itself, imply any sort of involvement in planting the story in the first place.

And as mentioned above, ITQ isn’t going to let this go just yet. She’ll keep you posted if she’s able to uncover anything else.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/30/waferga...usual-suspects/

So I would agree the Liberals need to take control of this angle of the event or risk an unpleasant outcome.

[capricorn]

It seems to be the standard Tory political method to suggest that there is a conspiracy out to get them and that the Liberals masterminded it all.

You mean like Liberal bloggers' posts that the Tories strong armed the Irving family to have their newspaper retract the story or they would be blackballed for federal shipbuilding contracts?

You seem to know who it is already. Why not reveal who the shadowy strategist is?

Let's see if the Liberals have their own Deep Throat.

[August1991]

The sad thing is that Obama, the clueless Black guy, will get a pass. But Harper, the clueless White guy, gets no pass at all.

Obama can pocket the wafer because he doesn't really know. But if Harper pockets the wafer, he's screwed.

Edited July 30, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

You mean like Liberal bloggers' posts that the Tories strong armed the Irving family to have their newspaper retract the story or they would be blackballed for federal shipbuilding contracts?

Personally, I don't believe it because it would be too easy to track back but it does make a good story.

My view is that the journalists on the paper speaking to a lawyer was incentive enough to take a look at the story and retract it.

Let's see if the Liberals have their own Deep Throat.

I guess you can wish for it. I have seen less dissension in Liberal ranks than at any time in recent years.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, every now and then, it's just like somebody steals your login/password because all this junk starts spewing out trying to deflect any criticism of the Liberals. Nobody knows yet who is responsible for feeding the false information that caused the Publisher and Editor of the newspaper to change the reporters' story before it went to print. All we know is that the Publisher and Editor have been disciplined, if not removed completely from their jobs.

And some on the right are saying Liberals did it and even naming names. Lifesite has already gotten a letter from lawyers. We'll see if they wish to continue.

There's no need for threats of sueing people or calling people cowards for not naming people. Nobody knows at this this point who is actually behind it. It's reasonable speculation by Fife, supposedly backed up by sources, that the Liberals are behind it.

And Fife is being asked for specifics as well. Who are his sources? And if he believes Liberals might have something to do it, which Liberals has he asked? Has he asked the party leader, president or strategists?

I think we'll just have to wait and see how the story plays out. It was interesting to see that The Star had nothing to say on the retraction and the firings except for one crummy lttle line in an unrelated story. They certainly got a lot of mileage out of the original "story", as did the Liberals. The bigger story is the front-page retraction and the firing of a Publisher and Editor of a major newspaper.....but The Star chose to ignore it all. But Dobbin......forget about sueing and the childish "coward" remarks - lets see how it plays out.

Stop making innuendo about Liberals starting this all up or I'll continue to call coward on the ones who seem hesitant to put a name to the conspiracy.

As for the Star, I generally don't read it because it is Toronto-centric. Others don't read it because it leans Liberal and states so.

Still, if you are going to say the Star didn't say anything, you should at least look first:

http://www.thestar.com/article/673262

The saga of the missing holy host now has a sequel – a confession.

A New Brunswick newspaper has issued an apology to Stephen Harper for a story that suggested the Prime Minister slipped a communion host into his pocket during a Catholic funeral mass.

This is one little line?

Plus, they had the original CP story everyone else had:

http://www.thestar.com/article/672973

A daily newspaper in New Brunswick has apologized to Prime Minister Stephen Harper for a story it published on July 8 that said the prime minister slipped a communion wafer into his jacket pocket at a funeral mass for former Gov.-Gen. Romeo LeBlanc.

Plus, it was written about early on the Star blogs:

A couple of unusual things about this newspaper apology. First, it appears on page A1 of the Saint John Telegraph Journal. Second, it goes into some detail about the mechanics behind the story; absolving the reporters of blame and placing the fault at the feet of the editors. Usually, newspapers claim collective blame for any mistakes (a sometimes infuriating policy for reporters.)

I'm very curious about how comments were included in a story without the reporters' knowledge. That too is unusual, and way beyond ethical.

Now, that is a few mentions.

I expect a correction just as Steven Janke had to correct himself by saying that the original story had been a lead on the CBC National News.

[Keepitsimple]

Stop making innuendo about Liberals starting this all up or I'll continue to call coward on the ones who seem hesitant to put a name to the conspiracy.

As for the Star, I generally don't read it because it is Toronto-centric. Others don't read it because it leans Liberal and states so.

Still, if you are going to say the Star didn't say anything, you should at least look first:

With regards to the Star, perhaps you are right but it was not in the print version of this morning's edition......maybe we'll see it tomorrow.....that would be OK and then I'd have to retract my comment.

As for innuendos....I can't help it - but as you've seen, my comments are only inuendo because I don't have the facts. It just seems so plainly obvious at this point that it was dome to embarrass Harper and it only benefits the Liberals. That much is so plainly obvious that there can't help but be innuendos. As I said, lets see how it plays out.

[jdobbin]

With regards to the Star, perhaps you are right but it was not in the print version of this morning's edition......maybe we'll see it tomorrow.....that would be OK and then I'd have to retract my comment.

I have no idea how many additions there are for the Star.

However, I can't think of any major media groups who didn't report the story.

As for innuendos....I can't help it - but as you've seen, my comments are only inuendo because I don't have the facts. It just seems so plainly obvious at this point that it was dome to embarrass Harper and it only benefits the Liberals. That much is so plainly obvious that there can't help but be innuendos. As I said, lets see how it plays out.

I think I made it clear from the very beginning that in the absence of knowing for certain, people turned to the video. My view is that Harper should have been better briefed on protocol so that the issue of the communion would not have even come up. His staff have been letting him down all too often.

[Alta4ever]

I have no idea how many additions there are for the Star.

However, I can't think of any major media groups who didn't report the story.

I think I made it clear from the very beginning that in the absence of knowing for certain, people turned to the video. My view is that Harper should have been better briefed on protocol so that the issue of the communion would not have even come up. His staff have been letting him down all too often.

I think you should just let it go, it was a communion, if this is all the liberal party has left to attempt to hammer Harper this tells us the people the state of the party. I and many others don't vote based on this kind of crap we vote on issues of governance of the country, those who are concerned about how the PM eats a wafer at communion are vapid, vane and self righteous.

[jdobbin]

I think you should just let it go, it was a communion, if this is all the liberal party has left to attempt to hammer Harper this tells us the people the state of the party. I and many others don't vote based on this kind of crap we vote on issues of governance of the country, those who are concerned about how the PM eats a wafer at communion are vapid, vane and self righteous.

The Tories don't let it go. They are accusing the Liberals of some sort of conspiracy. Why don't you let it go?

[Visionseeker]

Right from the OP, it was obvious that many posters in this thread were going to be quite predictable.

An issue like this illustrates the inherent difference between the typical Tory and Liberal supporter, that of "head" person and "heart" person.

"Head" people are more practical, forming their beliefs and values according to reason and experience.

"Heart" people lead with their "feelings". They tend to follow by faith. They might not understand very much of what a leader says but if they have a good opinion of him or her they will follow them blindly.

"Head" people are more willing to change their minds when confronted with strong new evidence. That's why Mulroney's party was knocked down to only TWO SEATS in Parliament when they were offered the option of the Reform Party. "Head" people could not continue their support in the face of his ACTIONS!

"Heart" people will rarely change their minds, if ever. They tend not to scrutinize new evidence very closely anyway, so why should they change their mind? As long as they LIKE their leaders they will stick by them!

The electorate is made up of these two groups plus a perhaps equally large third group of people who are much more fluid in their choices. Most of who post on this board seem to fall strongly in one or the other of the first two camps.

"Heart" people forgave Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart. Their faith could not be broken!

They will continue to support the Liberals. Adscam, Shawinigate, HRDC, the Gun Registry cost and now 'Wafergate' notwithstanding...

Wow! Talk about slamming a square peg into a round hole!!!

"Heart people", as you call them, are necessarily extremist who occupy the political fringe. As they are set in their ways, no amount of evidence can make them change their opinion. "Head people" are necessarily centrists as they are open to review their convictions based on the veracity of new evidence. Conservatives and NDP supporters are more likely to be "Hearters" while Liberals tend to use their heads more. Because that's what people in the centre do: think.

[waldo]

I think you should just let it go, it was a communion, if this is all the liberal party has left to attempt to hammer Harper this tells us the people the state of the party. I and many others don't vote based on this kind of crap we vote on issues of governance of the country, those who are concerned about how the PM eats a wafer at communion are vapid, vane and self righteous.

Of course, you would miss the salient point. It's moved beyond the communion indignity offered up by Harper. It's now about the unfounded innuendo and conspiracy charges being thrown about by Conservatives. It's also about prominent back-pedaling Conservatives who feel anxious and threatened by potential lawsuits - stay tuned.

[Alta4ever]

The Tories don't let it go. They are accusing the Liberals of some sort of conspiracy. Why don't you let it go?

I never cared about the original story, I can't believe your response in this thread, let it go, it is inconsequential, and holding on to it is more damaging then to just let it pass.

[Visionseeker]

Fife seems to jump on any story.

It is interesting to note that accusations naming the Liberals as being responsible for this are being toned down. The threat of a lawsuit usually does that.

I imagine that Fife is in very big trouble right now.

[jdobbin]

I never cared about the original story, I can't believe your response in this thread, let it go, it is inconsequential, and holding on to it is more damaging then to just let it pass.

Tell your people to let it go. They are making accusations.

[Alta4ever]

Of course, you would miss the salient point. It's moved beyond the communion indignity offered up by Harper. It's now about the unfounded innuendo and conspiracy charges being thrown about by Conservatives. It's also about prominent back-pedaling Conservatives who feel anxious and threatened by potential lawsuits - stay tuned.

It has not moved beyond, have you ever heard the saying be the bigger person? Are the liberals going to sue Fife, that is the question.

[Visionseeker]

This was not a church service it was a funeral, i would love to see you say that to muslim or jew, your as- er butt would be hauled in front of a human rights commision so fast, you'd be asking Mr Scott what warp number you hit.

OK. Now I "know" what happened. The PM took his protocol advice and briefing from someone like you. Not a church service but a funeral!? Good God man! What church service could be more sacrosanct than a funeral?

[Alta4ever]

Tell your people to let it go. They are making accusations.

What are you talking about my people, unlike you I have no connections to the upper echelons of any party.

[Alta4ever]

OK. Now I "know" what happened. The PM took his protocol advice and briefing from someone like you. Not a church service but a funeral!? Good God man! What church service could be more sacrosanct than a funeral?

There is a big difference between a church service and a funeral, a funeral brings people of all faith to morn the loss of a loved/respected individual, a church service brings the regular congregation.

[jdobbin]

What are you talking about my people, unlike you I have no connections to the upper echelons of any party.

As as Tory supporter them, you should be upset that your party is making accusations.

Just as you are making accusations.

[Visionseeker]

Dobbin, every now and then, it's just like somebody steals your login/password because all this junk starts spewing out trying to deflect any criticism of the Liberals. Nobody knows yet who is responsible for feeding the false information that caused the Publisher and Editor of the newspaper to change the reporters' story before it went to print.

1- It is not a false story. But one that remains ambiguous. Editors modify stories all the time and, in this case, they seem to have a senior Catholic cleric quotred who hasn't demanded a retraction or apology.

All we know is that the Publisher and Editor have been disciplined, if not removed completely from their jobs. There's no need for threats of sueing people or calling people cowards for not naming people. Nobody knows at this this point who is actually behind it.

Disciplined why? The apology doesn't retract the quotes attributed to the senior Catholic cleric, it simply ignores them.

It's reasonable speculation by Fife, supposedly backed up by sources, that the Liberals are behind it. I think we'll just have to wait and see how the story plays out.

You're right. And it will be equally interesting to see what role this may have played in Kory jumping ship.

It was interesting to see that The Star had nothing to say on the retraction and the firings except for one crummy lttle line in an unrelated story.

Why would they? They know that someone has stepped in it, the story can only grow from there.

They certainly got a lot of mileage out of the original "story", as did the Liberals. The bigger story is the front-page retraction and the firing of a Publisher and Editor of a major newspaper.....but The Star chose to ignore it all. But Dobbin......forget about sueing and the childish "coward" remarks - lets see how it plays out.

No, the bigger story is why the Irving empire may have had to perform a human sacrifice in order to be cleansed so that they might remain eligible for ship building contracts.