Tory MP eats crow after ruffling judical feathers

[Argus]

I'm still not convinced a politician's personal life has anything to do with his/her job, or that I have any right to know about it.

We're not voting for them because they're great people, or people we would choose as friends but because we want them to form our government. Yes, they should be held to somewhat of a higher standard with regards to behavior because they're in positions of higher responsibility but they still have the right to private lives, and the right to make all the same mistakes that the rest of us make.

The problem is that we generally elect politicians who have little or no knowledge or training in what we're electing them for. And that the job in question has a moral and social aspect to it wherin the occupants will be making moral and social decisions for us - ie, abortion, gay rights, capital punishment, child care. What does Graham or any of them know about such things? Nothing. So what is our criteria for selection our representative? Well, it helps if they're educated. It's a good thing if they have some kind of success in life, both economically and socially. And we'd like them to be honest and forthright with us, and have a high level of personal integrity. A man who hides his homosexuality during a time when homosexual rights is a huge issue, indeed, who speaks out on it while disguising his personal interest, does not have, in my opinion, a high level of personal integrity and is not being honest and forthright. What makes it worse is that he's "out" to his party, to his fellow MPs, to his constituent workers, family and friends. But he keeps himself "in" to the general voting public. Why? Give me a reason which does not smack of political expediency. As for a man who makes use of prostitutes, that again speaks to his lack of discretion, wisdom and personal care, not only for himself but for others. Is he not endangering his wife by consorting with male prostitutes (that presumes he ever has conjugal relations with her, of course).

I don't ask my mechanic if he fools around on his wife, so why should I care if my MP does ?

The mechanic is not making social and moral decisions for your society which you will have to abide by.

The quick answer is that we expect our MPs to be honest. But how honest ? Politics is all about skating around the truth, and if we held the truth standard to the ideal level, truly there would be no politicans left.

Sure there would. They'd just be honest. I understand this is a challenging concept, but it is theoretically possible for politicians to be more or less honest. If we simply fired any of them who lied or weaseled around the truth then we'd improve the breed immeasurably.

[Argus]

Really? So what exactly do this speechwriter/image consultants do day-to-day?

Is that important to the discussion at hand?

Uhhh, yeah it kinda is. We started out with you saying the following.

Every word they say, the expression on their face when they say it, the tone of voice, the way they tilt their head, their haircut, their suit, EVERYTHING is guided by spin-doctors and media analysts.

I am just trying to figure out if you actually know what you are talking about or are just pulling terms like *spin-doctor*, *media analyst*, *speechwriter* or *image consultant* outta your butt.

But your attempt at deflecting the question tomorrow tells me that you don't.

It goes to establishing credibility.

Oh is that it? And do you require information on what secretaries do, as well? I'm not sure I understand why you seem incapable of understanding the roles involved. What do they do? They scan local media, they go through the daily national media analyses the party puts out. They check the MPs schedule to see who he'll be meeting with and what those people are likely to be wanting form him/her, and then provide their MP with a rundown on the people, their wishes, the party's position on such things, suggested answers and deflections, possible ramifications, polling information on their constituentcy as to what their constituents feel on the issue, etc. He'll also be writing speeches for the variety of appearances the MP has to make every month; everything from community association meetings to speeches in parliament. In the event their MP is going to make a TV appearance the'll do their best, in conjunction with the party, to brief him or her on what kinds of questions they will face, the arguments which are likely to be put forth by other panel members (if there is a panel involved), the kind of games the interviewer might play in trying to draw out information on specific subjects, and how to counter them. He'll be inbvolved in mailouts to constituents, in keeping their MP aware of what their constituents are thinking on all important issues. They'll discuss these issues with other MPs exec assistants, sounding each other out on internal party issues and disagreements, form alliances over a variety of issues, and communicate all this back to their MP. The job involves a wide assortment of duties, all of which are designed to make the MP look better, smarter, more capable, etc.

[August1991]

We seem to have two threads going here. One concerns the Supreme Court and the other concerns politicians and image.

Let me return to the Supreme Court, and specifically Beverley McLachlin speaking four years ago on the twentieth anniversay of the Charter's signing:

Twenty years are all that separate us from that cold and blustery day -- April 17, 1982 -- which marked the Patriation of our Constitution and the adoption of the Charter of Rights.

Thinking of that day conjures up a vivid image of that drizzly scene on Parliament Hill -- the Queen signing the rain-spotted parchment, as Pierre-Elliott Trudeau looks on, smiling, and our present Prime Minister, then Justice Minister, stands proudly looking on. For many of us, the image of that signing ceremony evokes memories of the excitement that was in the air about Canada's possibilities; of the sense that Canada had come into its own, was setting out to chart its own course; and perhaps most of all, of a pervasive feeling of enthusiasm, of optimism and hope for the future.

In many ways, Trudeau himself -- with his intellectual rigour and his pirouettes -- seemed to incarnate the spirit of those times: Patriating the Constitution and introducing the Charter reflected a willingness for Canada to break with tradition and strike its own path -- but on the basis of a clearly-articulated, forward-looking, and distinctly Canadian vision of what that path would look like.

Supreme Court

Imagine, for a moment, if she referred to Stephen Harper or Brian Mulroney in the same glowing terms that she refers to Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien. Sorry, our Chief Justice sounds like a partisan Liberal hack. She seems unaware that she has thoroughly confused the words Canada and Liberal Party.

Her so-called judicial activism is merely advancing the political agenda of the Liberal Party.

[shoop]

Oh is that it? And do you require information on what secretaries do, as well?

That's just rude, and needlessly arrogant.

I'm not sure I understand why you seem incapable of understanding the roles involved.

That too.

What do they do? They scan local media, they go through the daily national media analyses the party puts out. They check the MPs schedule to see who he'll be meeting with and what those people are likely to be wanting form him/her, and then provide their MP with a rundown on the people, their wishes, the party's position on such things, suggested answers and deflections, possible ramifications, polling information on their constituentcy as to what their constituents feel on the issue, etc. He'll also be writing speeches for the variety of appearances the MP has to make every month; everything from community association meetings to speeches in parliament. In the event their MP is going to make a TV appearance the'll do their best, in conjunction with the party, to brief him or her on what kinds of questions they will face, the arguments which are likely to be put forth by other panel members (if there is a panel involved), the kind of games the interviewer might play in trying to draw out information on specific subjects, and how to counter them. He'll be inbvolved in mailouts to constituents, in keeping their MP aware of what their constituents are thinking on all important issues. They'll discuss these issues with other MPs exec assistants, sounding each other out on internal party issues and disagreements, form alliances over a variety of issues, and communicate all this back to their MP. The job involves a wide assortment of duties, all of which are designed to make the MP look better, smarter, more capable, etc.

At least this sounds like you have a reasonable idea of the situation.

I do think you overstate a few things like the level of preparedness for most MPs in media appearances and constituency events, for example.

The cost of polling is far too high to be used as often as you believe.

Motivation for the job is tough to peg down, but MPs should be prepared to deal with the issue that they face. So it would be far more than to just make the MP look better. It might actually be to help the MPs do their job better...

[shoop]

OP. Do you prefer no1important or Canadian?

One of the rules on this board is no cross posting.

Almost identical babblestrike thread.

Here's the rule, just sorta FYI

NO CROSS-POSTING

Cross posting is defined as posting the same information in more then one forum on the Internet. It is also considered cross posting if you post the same information in different areas of these forums. If you want to propose a new topic, find the appropriate category and only post once. All cross-posts will be deleted without warning.

[scribblet]

Gosh, it would be almost impossible not to post on a hot news topic, or media article that isn't being discussed somewhere else in the hundreds of internet forums.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure there would. They'd just be honest. I understand this is a challenging concept, but it is theoretically possible for politicians to be more or less honest. If we simply fired any of them who lied or weaseled around the truth then we'd improve the breed immeasurably.

Well, let's look at that list. You've got Peter McKay [broke a written promise not to merge with Reform], Preston Manning [moved into Stornoway], all the Reform/Alliance MPs who took the pension [they changed their minds, ok], Ralph Klein [closet alcoholic - not 'out' to the public], Gordon Campbell [drunk driver], Mike Harris[multiple marriage/divorce].

That's just on the right side of the political spectrum. I'll leave the many, many MPs on the left side for you to name.

Politics is nasty enough without these people having to waste energy defending and attacking each others' morals as they do in the US. Their records in service of the government is public knowledge and that's enough for me. I for one, don't feel that we need to drag these people through the dirty dirt.

[shoop]

Point made. But look at the OP and then the post I linked to. Almost identical. A few words was added to one of the posts...

Gosh, it would be almost impossible not to post on a hot news topic, or media article that isn't being discussed somewhere else in the hundreds of internet forums.

[Argus]

Oh is that it? And do you require information on what secretaries do, as well?

That's just rude, and needlessly arrogant.

Consider the tone in the post it was responding to.

At least this sounds like you have a reasonable idea of the situation.

I do think you overstate a few things like the level of preparedness for most MPs in media appearances and constituency events, for example.

The cost of polling is far too high to be used as often as you believe.

All MPs keep a running "poll" on their constituents beliefs based on the correspondance and phone calls they receive, if nothing else.

Motivation for the job is tough to peg down, but MPs should be prepared to deal with the issue that they face. So it would be far more than to just make the MP look better. It might actually be to help the MPs do their job better...

The point is that when the MP speaks you're not hearing the MP. You're hearing the spin developed by other people. When the MP gives his opinion, you're hearing the considered strategic position which is based on polls and target groups. You don't really know a lot about the MP. For example, Harper has never been willing to state his personal position on abortion, while Paul Martin has always refused to state his personal position on same sex marriage.

[shoop]

Consider the tone in the post it was responding to.

OK ...

All MPs keep a running "poll" on their constituents beliefs based on the correspondance and phone calls they receive, if nothing else.

It's a little confusing when sometimes you use the word *poll* to mean an actual opinion poll, then sometimes you use the word *poll* to talk about keeping track of constituent feedback. I think you originally started talking about opinion polls. Did you change to keep track of feedback when faced with how prohibitively expensive the use of opinion polls you *claimed* was taking place would be?

The point is that when the MP speaks you're not hearing the MP. You're hearing the spin developed by other people. When the MP gives his opinion, you're hearing the considered strategic position which is based on polls and target groups. You don't really know a lot about the MP. For example, Harper has never been willing to state his personal position on abortion, while Paul Martin has always refused to state his personal position on same sex marriage.

Hmmm, this time which sense of the word poll are you using? What do you meant by *target groups* are you actually talking about focus groups? Which again are far too expensive to be used regularly by MPs.

Just because aides prepare background information for MPs it doesn't mean they are adding their own *spin* on the information the MP receives. MPs are ultimately responsible to the voters. Do you honestly think they would hold back their own views because somebody on their staff told them to present themselves differently. How would anybody who did that ever win re-election? Why wouldn't good quality staffers, who have the able to come up with such great *spin*, just run for office themselves? I'm guessing the money would be better...

[Montgomery Burns]

Even an aid to the loathsome Pierre Trudeau says that Beverley McLachlin is playing God with our constitution: Ouch!

Maurice Vellacott is despised by the left here in Saskatoon; he's one of dem der religious folk who believes that 8 month old innocent babies should not be killed at taxpayer expense. He is also the guy who appeared on a local Saskatoon cable show where someone phoned in and accused him of sexually harrassing a church secretary (when the phone call was traced to Goodale's campaign office--Goodale rolled out the Paul Martin "I dun no nuttin" excuse).

Shockingly, the Canadian MSM ignored this disgusting smear tactic by the Liberals and gave it little or no attention.

There is a reason why liberals try to push their agendas through activist courts; they know damn well if it was put to a vote, their agenda would be rejected by the public.