Free Advice to Peter MacKay

watching&waiting · October 21, 2006

People may try to remember Trudeau's foray with improper language. They even made a poem about it

"Sing a song of fuddle duttle,

Trudeau's found a broad to cuddle,

NDP just stopped and stared,

Stanfield crapped his underwear,

All the world is in a muddle.

All because of fuddle duddle"

Now if my memory does not fail me, Trudeau never apologised for this or ever even acknowledged what he really said. This whole issue is more a political tool then anything, and MacKay can easily turn this back on the Libs. So I think we will just wait and see. If he really just wants to defuse it, he may well apologise, but not admit to ever having said it. Since it is not even on the record of being said and there are only a few who are saying he did. It really makes you wonder. Just as the voters will wonder as well. The Libs will soon realize the more you make people look at the CPC the more they are inclined to support them.

jdobbin · October 21, 2006

Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher whining about being put down as a woman? Whether you agreed with her politics or not she was the most successful women politician and effective leaders in memory. Why, because she knew she was a better man than any of them. Belinda? I don't think so.

Thatcher was out down for acting like a man and her husband was put down for not acting like one.

Wilber · October 21, 2006

Personally I think it is a pretty good line. It won't sound strange to anyone familiar with the shots Churchill and Lady Astor used to exchange across the floor and in the press. Too bad Belinda doesn't have the same kind of bottom as Astor. She might be taken seriously as a potential leader if she did.

Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher whining about being put down as a woman? Whether you agreed with her politics or not she was the most successful women politician and effective leaders in memory. Why, because she knew she was a better man than any of them. Belinda? I don't think so.

There are a lot of people in Great Britian who might not agree with you. She too was a war monger.

More revisionist history. Hitler was the war monger as was Galtieri. Who invaded who? Thatcher never lost an election, she was the victim of internal party politics. Of course there are people in Britain who wouldn't agree with me.

I wasn't referring to her politics but the fact she would go head to head with the boys without using the S card and complaining she was being picked on because she was a woman. Her response would have been a swift verbal kick in the nuts, not a whine. She would have had nothing but contempt for that tactic.

jdobbin · October 21, 2006

I wasn't referring to her politics but the fact she would go head to head with the boys without using the S card and complaining she was being picked on because she was a woman. Her response would have been a swift verbal kick in the nuts, not a whine. She would have had nothing but contempt for that tactic.

They went after he indirectly. They went after her husband instead. She felt compelled to defend him because without him, she would not have had the support needed to run in the first place.

cybercoma · October 21, 2006

I think slandering a woman in public months after splitting with her is far worse than cheating. Doing it at all is despicable.
At least in the case of cheating there was understandable motivation. Doing what he did was just being a nasty, spiteful pos.

I'd suggest calling an MP a piece of s*** is more nasty and spiteful.

Ricki Bobbi · October 21, 2006

I'd suggest calling an MP a piece of shit is more nasty and spiteful.

You gotta love the good ole double-standards eh?

gerryhatrick · October 21, 2006

At least in the case of cheating there was understandable motivation. Doing what he did was just being a nasty, spiteful pos.

"You already have her." Is being nasty and spiteful?

Wow. Very, very interesting double-standard there.

Calling her a dog is. And glaring at her from accross the aisle to the point that she had to move spots is.

Don't play lawyer with us. It's not working for Petey and it won't work for you.

cybercoma · October 21, 2006

Calling her a dog is. And glaring at her from accross the aisle to the point that she had to move spots is.
Don't play lawyer with us. It's not working for Petey and it won't work for you.

I demand you apologize for calling a cabinet minister a piece of s***

gerryhatrick · October 21, 2006

Calling her a dog is. And glaring at her from accross the aisle to the point that she had to move spots is.

Don't play lawyer with us. It's not working for Petey and it won't work for you.

I demand you apologize for calling a cabinet minister a piece of shit.

I will call any member of the house who refers to another female house member as a dog a pos. I will continue to use the acronym to avoid offending the many children who post here.

jdobbin · October 21, 2006

I wish will all people here would refrain from swearing. It might seem clever but it isn't.

Ricki Bobbi · October 21, 2006

I will call any member of the house who refers to another female house member as a dog a pos. I will continue to use the acronym to avoid offending the many children who post here.

Hmmm, there is that double standard I was referring to. Which children are you talking about Gerry?

gerryhatrick · October 21, 2006

I will call any member of the house who refers to another female house member as a dog a pos. I will continue to use the acronym to avoid offending the many children who post here.

Hmmm, there is that double standard I was referring to.

How is that a double standard? I clearly said I will call any house member who refers to another female house member as a dog a pos.

Maybe you think I mean any CPC member. No, ANY house member from ANY party.

Ricki Bobbi · October 21, 2006

I wish will all people here would refrain from swearing. It might seem clever but it isn't.

bravo

There was only one person here swearing...

cybercoma · October 21, 2006

Yeah, sorry about that...I'll go back and edit my posts.

jdobbin · October 21, 2006

Yeah, sorry about that...I'll go back and edit my posts.

I appreciate that. I know that you're able to say what you're thinking without the use of profanity.

Other people should edit their responses that have profanity in them rather than accusing others of starting it.

If there is one way to see a massive purge of members by the moderator, it is usually this.

Biblio Bibuli · October 21, 2006

I discussed MacKay's dilemma with Don Martin yesterday, through my television set.

In today's article Don says:

"To put the controversy behind him, MacKay has no choice but to grovel for his former gal pal's forgiveness.

But how can he apologize for something he denies saying? That's the deadly rub, because he can only escape by admitting he covered up his comments with a lie.

He has to say he's sorry for the smear and then say he's sorry for the fib. And that's a career killer for a senior Cabinet minister in a minority government.

That he tried to hide behind plausible deniability, hoping to be saved by having his words uttered beyond the range of microphones, is his own petard with a hangman's hoist.

This will not go away. And the Prime Minister may have to step in unless, miraculously, the story loses its legs over the weekend. Not bloody likely.

Stephen Harper cannot have a man-child holding Canadian diplomacy in his hands."

Don is right, as usual.

Wilber · October 21, 2006

I wasn't referring to her politics but the fact she would go head to head with the boys without using the S card and complaining she was being picked on because she was a woman. Her response would have been a swift verbal kick in the nuts, not a whine. She would have had nothing but contempt for that tactic.

They went after he indirectly. They went after her husband instead. She felt compelled to defend him because without him, she would not have had the support needed to run in the first place.

Good for her, very few people can exist without support from someone. I've been married for 37 years and would be the first to admit that my wife deserves a great deal of credit for any success I have had in life.

The point is Thatcher considered herself anyones equal and did not feel the need to use her sex to fight her battles. If she ever did it was to turn a comment back on someone with her own intelligence and wit, not whine about it. Belinda should have either brushed it off or come back with a better line. Until she learns to do that she will be a lightweight, not someone who can command respect as a potential leader.

Given the personal history between these two this story belongs in tabloid news like E Talk or ET Canada, not the national media.

jdobbin · October 21, 2006

Given the personal history between these two this story belongs in tabloid news like E Talk or ET Canada, not the national media.

Most of the time Stronach has not responded to the furor. I don't think it is appropriate for the Foreign Minister to be acting like a sexist and a boor.

I think that Thatcher herself would have asked that the remark be withdrawn. Instead MacKay acts like it didn't happen.

cybercoma · October 21, 2006

Given the personal history between these two this story belongs in tabloid news like E Talk or ET Canada, not the national media.

Most of the time Stronach has not responded to the furor. I don't think it is appropriate for the Foreign Minister to be acting like a sexist and a boor.

I think that Thatcher herself would have asked that the remark be withdrawn. Instead MacKay acts like it didn't happen.

How is he acting sexist? He insulted his exgf, something many people do and are not labelled as sexist. Although it was boorish, calling him and especially the conservative party sexist is just asinine.

Wilber · October 21, 2006

Given the personal history between these two this story belongs in tabloid news like E Talk or ET Canada, not the national media.

Most of the time Stronach has not responded to the furor. I don't think it is appropriate for the Foreign Minister to be acting like a sexist and a boor.

I think that Thatcher herself would have asked that the remark be withdrawn. Instead MacKay acts like it didn't happen.

Had ther been no personal history between these two I might agree. When you have jumped in the sack with someone, Parliamentary rules no longer apply.

watching&waiting · October 21, 2006

First off the record will never say that MacKay ever did say the word dog, and even the liberal few who say he inferred the word in his answer, can not say the word dog came out of MacKays lips. So there will never be a formal request by the house about this. If MacKay wants to he can apologise for not speaking more clearly so that it could be recorded for the record, and then say what je meant etc. That would end this and would not harm anyone. But it is too busy trying to grow legs and walk, but no thinking person will give it much thought. As for Belinda saying she wants an apology, she whould first have to have heard that comment about her being said by MacKay. Something you all know would not happen.

For example Mackay could say he believed the liberal asked about his doll and he responded go ask her you now have her. Why not just see this for what it is a sad attempt by a sad party to try to get something on an honest and fair government.

Biblio Bibuli · October 21, 2006

In today's article Don says:

Here's the whole thing.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...52-22d58390ba61

Drea · October 21, 2006

Liberal Minister: "Where is your dog?" Referring to the dog he used, wasn't even his, during his interview after the breakup.

MacKay: Pointing at the seat where Stronach used to sit "You've got her."

Bob: "where's the beer?"

Bill : "in the fridge"

Is Bill referring to the beer? Or the fridge?

gerryhatrick · October 21, 2006

First off the record will never say that MacKay ever did say the word dog, and even the liberal few who say he inferred the word in his answer, can not say the word dog came out of MacKays lips.

That is the position MacKay has taken, yes. And it is true, he did not use the word dog, and nobody is saying he did actually use the word.

What you need to realize and speak to if you seek to discuss this issue with any credibility is that he answered a question about his dog by gesturing to Stonachs empty seat and saying "You already have her".

That is an EXPLICIT (not "inferred") labelling of Stronach as his dog.

Now, you and others can play lawyer along with Mr. Mackay and keep pointing out that the word dog - in fact none of his words - were recorded by the Hansard. Such a position is a losing one though, becasue the court of public opinion has already passed a verdict that what he is described as doing and saying is accurate.

And if one accepts that he said and did what is being described then one must admit that he did, for all intents and purposes, call Stronach a dog. Hiding behind the point that he never used the word is ridiculous.

I have no doubt Mackay is kicking himself now for not simply apologizing immediately. THAT would have won him the respect of many.

His misguided lawyer-like attempt to dodge a conviction in this situation has backfired badly.

jdobbin · October 21, 2006

How is he acting sexist? He insulted his exgf, something many people do and are not labelled as sexist. Although it was boorish, calling him and especially the conservative party sexist is just asinine.

Other Conservatives have made the sexist remarks and have not faced any caucus rebukes.

MacKay himself was acting like a boor and the remark is sexist in an of itself because it is generally used as a comment on how a woman looks.