CP: Mackay controversy flares anew

Ricki Bobbi · October 28, 2006

I want the answer in public so I know you'll abide by it. Why is a public question on the matter in the questions forum a problem for you?
And we both know why you won't answer my question. You know that Mackay made the gesture and said the things he's been accused of saying (in multiple sworn affidavits).

You know it's true, and you can't bring yourself to deny it because you know your credibility be entirely gone, similar to how Mackay's is.

You didn't 'threaten' to send a note to Greg asking for an apology. Your avoidance of the quesiton is pretty weak and lame. Your threat was weak, you had no reason to make it. You have no credibility. You sir are an embarassment.

You are a plague on this message board. You are here to do nothing but attack, attack and attack. I have provided you with a response. You pathetic 'this is real anti-Harperism' thread was yet another example. Your continuation of this story is another example.

You waste bandwidth with your attacks. By sidelining you, I expose you for the vain personal agenda you are attempting to carry out.

kimmy · October 28, 2006

The fact that this has become an issue in Parliament, and apparently an issue for voters as well, makes me despair for the future of this country.

This belongs right down there with the Inky Mark / Reg Alcott dispute or with Volpe trying to turn the "Libranos" poster into a political issue as among the most pathetic wastes of time I've ever heard of.

If MacKay did in fact call Stronach a dog, then MacKay owes a big apology to dogs everywhere.

That is all. Good day.

-k

Ricki Bobbi · October 28, 2006

The fact that this has become an issue in Parliament, and apparently an issue for voters as well, makes me despair for the future of this country.

Don't really think it has become an issue with voters. The Harper-haters are using it to attack him. Conservative supporters are supporting the party and the PM.

Swing voters .... probly couldn't care less.

gc1765 · October 28, 2006

The fact that this has become an issue in Parliament, and apparently an issue for voters as well, makes me despair for the future of this country.
This belongs right down there with the Inky Mark / Reg Alcott dispute or with Volpe trying to turn the "Libranos" poster into a political issue as among the most pathetic wastes of time I've ever heard of.

If MacKay did in fact call Stronach a dog, then MacKay owes a big apology to dogs everywhere.

That is all. Good day.

-k

The issue is not the fact that he called her a dog. The issue is that he blatantly lied about it. I don't really care if he called her a dog, but he should have the guts to admit what he said. He could have apologized for the incident, or better yet he could have said something like "yes, I called her a dog, but it was addressed specifically to her and not to all women". I would have respected the courage it would take to say something like that. Instead, he is acting cowardly by lying about it, especially when it was caught on tape.

A lot of posters on this board seem to believe the name calling is not a big issue (and I agree), but they forget that he lied about it. I don't know if this is intentionally diverting the issue or not.

Ricki Bobbi · October 28, 2006

The issue is not the fact that he called her a dog. The issue is that he blatantly lied about it. I don't really care if he called her a dog, but he should have the guts to admit what he said. He could have apologized for the incident, or better yet he could have said something like "yes, I called her a dog, but it was addressed specifically to her and not to all women". I would have respected the courage it would take to say something like that. Instead, he is acting cowardly by lying about it, especially when it was caught on tape.
A lot of posters on this board seem to believe the name calling is not a big issue (and I agree), but they forget that he lied about it. I don't know if this is intentionally diverting the issue or not.

The 'lying' isn't so clear cut. Did he 'infer' she was a dog? Maybe. Did he 'gesture' towards her seat? Maybe.

Did he actually call Stronach a dog? No.

He is a lawyer which probably explains the hair-splitting. I have said it before. MacKay proved his honesty and moral fibre with the PC leadership. This isn't such a big deal. (btw to clarify he should never have made the promise to Orchard in the first place. Once becoming leader he couldn't keep his word.)

I think this 'controversy' speaks volumes about politics in Canada at the moment. Scary Harper has been in power for nine months and this is the biggest 'controversy' of his administration? Sounds like steady, honest, reliable Government to me.

The Liberals promised to provide an effective and strong opposition. This is the best they can come up with?

gc1765 · October 28, 2006

The 'lying' isn't so clear cut. Did he 'infer' she was a dog? Maybe. Did he 'gesture' towards her seat? Maybe.
Did he actually call Stronach a dog? No.

When questioned about the incident, Mackay said "I made no such comment..."

Sorry, but that's a lie, period.

Not to mention this: "I made no derogatory or discriminatory remark towards any member of this house, Mr. Speaker". Also a lie, period.

If you STILL want to split hairs, fine, how do you feel about someone who splits hair to distort the truth by making people think he didn't infer she was a dog?

cybercoma · October 28, 2006

I was going to go out to a Halloween party as a Leaf blower, but I couldn't find Belinda's shade of lipstick.

Shakeyhands · October 28, 2006

see its too late for an apology, its escalated into lying in the HoC, question is, whats the punishment.

and yes, Trudeau should have been in dutch for the fuddle duddle too.

cybercoma · October 28, 2006

see its too late for an apology, its escalated into lying in the HoC, question is, whats the punishment.
and yes, Trudeau should have been in dutch for the fuddle duddle too.

It was a non-issue to begin with, they should have never tied up parliament with all the stupid questions and attacks about it. The opposition could've proven themselves to be the bigger party by not glorifying the insult with so much attention. The only person it has any bearing on is Belinda Stronach, so who cares?

It should've been left alone from the word go and they should've got back to work, imho....but instead, we're going to tie up parliament with more soap opera BS.

watching&waiting · October 28, 2006

In any normal society this would have not been given any time at all. The only reason it has been given time is that the Liberals have taken it way out of proportion and tryied to garner some political points over it. To bad they do not see it thru my eys where all it did was lose them points for any comments made after the same dy it was made. It only shows you that the Liberal party has now gone about as low as it can get. They just do not seem to have any class or credibility left to carry on much of anything. Even the news papres treat their leadership race as a thing to be pitied. I guess we will have to wait for the voters to finally put the last nails in the party coffin.

The more they try to push this type of thing, the more it shows that their party is more inclined to issues of petty politics, then they are about issues of the day. The more the Senate stonewalls the bills it is sent, the easier it will be to make sure CPC have a majority government the next time out. It is the Liberals doing it to Liberals and they do not even see that it is happening.

gc1765 · October 28, 2006

It was a non-issue to begin with, they should have never tied up parliament with all the stupid questions and attacks about it. The opposition could've proven themselves to be the bigger party by not glorifying the insult with so much attention. The only person it has any bearing on is Belinda Stronach, so who cares?
It should've been left alone from the word go and they should've got back to work, imho....but instead, we're going to tie up parliament with more soap opera BS.

In any normal society this would have not been given any time at all. The only reason it has been given time is that the Liberals have taken it way out of proportion and tryied to garner some political points over it. To bad they do not see it thru my eys where all it did was lose them points for any comments made after the same dy it was made. It only shows you that the Liberal party has now gone about as low as it can get. They just do not seem to have any class or credibility left to carry on much of anything. Even the news papres treat their leadership race as a thing to be pitied. I guess we will have to wait for the voters to finally put the last nails in the party coffin.
The more they try to push this type of thing, the more it shows that their party is more inclined to issues of petty politics, then they are about issues of the day. The more the Senate stonewalls the bills it is sent, the easier it will be to make sure CPC have a majority government the next time out. It is the Liberals doing it to Liberals and they do not even see that it is happening.

Neither of you think that a politician lying is a big deal? I guess I expect & hope for a little more honesty from politicians than you do.

gerryhatrick · October 28, 2006

I want the answer in public so I know you'll abide by it. Why is a public question on the matter in the questions forum a problem for you?

You didn't 'threaten' to send a note to Greg asking for an apology. Your avoidance of the quesiton is pretty weak and lame. Your threat was weak, you had no reason to make it. You have no credibility. You sir are an embarassment.

What the #$%^ are you talking about? Seriously, I have no @#$%ing idea what you're talking about.

You accused me of breaking the rules (as you do about 55 times a day) so I simply said "I'll ask Greg".

How did I "threaten" you? Where was I asking for an apology?

I asked the question of Greg right here Ricki:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6950

If you want to talk about this anymore or accuse me of things in regards to it take it there I suppose. You've been asked not to engage in off topoc personal banter, and that's what you're perpetuating here now.

Canadian Blue · October 28, 2006

Neither of you think that a politician lying is a big deal? I guess I expect & hope for a little more honesty from politicians than you do.

If a politician is honest with Canadian's he or she will lose the support of the country.

gerryhatrick · October 28, 2006

Neither of you think that a politician lying is a big deal? I guess I expect & hope for a little more honesty from politicians than you do.

If a politician is honest with Canadian's he or she will lose the support of the country.

In parliament a bold-faced lie is not acceptable. You can find other examples if you like, but lying to Parliament is not common, and it's a serious matter.

gc1765 · October 28, 2006

Neither of you think that a politician lying is a big deal? I guess I expect & hope for a little more honesty from politicians than you do.

If a politician is honest with Canadian's he or she will lose the support of the country.

That is not a very good excuse to lie. Especially lying about something that was caught on tape. In the end, lying about it will most likely result in mackay loosing the support of the country more than if he had come clean. I don't think Canadians like being lied to.

Incidentally, though I can not speak for other Canadians, a politician that is honest is much more likely to get my support.

Shakeyhands · October 29, 2006

I find it oddly humourous that you guys are blaming this on the Liberals... You realize that it was McKay who said an incredibly stupid thing....

Ricki Bobbi · October 29, 2006

I find it oddly humourous that you guys are blaming this on the Liberals... You realize that it was McKay who said an incredibly stupid thing....

"You already have her." Sorry, gotta explain how that is 'incredibly stupid'.

Ricki Bobbi · October 29, 2006

I find it oddly humourous that you guys are blaming this on the Liberals... You realize that it was McKay who said an incredibly stupid thing....

"You already have her." Sorry, gotta explain how that is 'incredibly stupid'.

gerryhatrick · October 29, 2006

I find it oddly humourous that you guys are blaming this on the Liberals... You realize that it was McKay who said an incredibly stupid thing....

"You already have her." Sorry, gotta explain how that is 'incredibly stupid'.

So you accept that Mackay said it, ergo you believe he is lying when he claimed in the House to have made no such remark.

Ricki Bobbi · October 29, 2006

So you accept that Mackay said it, ergo you believe he is lying when he claimed in the House to have made no such remark.

Nine posts ago you chastised me for my behaviour on the board. I have admitted MacKay said that about ten times. Why attack me like you just did????

He claimed he did not call her a dog. He didn't call her a dog.

Don't start a fight over it. Don't attack me over it. Just behave reasonably and I'll do the same...

gerryhatrick · October 29, 2006

So you accept that Mackay said it, ergo you believe he is lying when he claimed in the House to have made no such remark.

Nine posts ago you chastised me for my behaviour on the board. I have admitted MacKay said that about ten times. Why attack me like you just did????

He claimed he did not call her a dog. He didn't call her a dog.

Don't start a fight over it. Don't attack me over it. Just behave reasonably and I'll do the same...

I just attacked you? Really?

You've framed this as a "he didn't call her a dog" debate, which is to say he didn't use the word "dog". You're debating that alone, because nobody claims he did use the specific word.

What he did do is gesture at Stronachs empty chair and say "you have her" in answer to the question "what about your dog".

THAT is all he's ever been accused of doing, and now he is lying about having done that.

If you admit that he said what he is accused of saying, then you are agreeing that he is lying about it. Hardly attacking you, simply attempting to clarify your position.

Strange you would say I'm attacking you for that. You're not Peter Mackay, mayhaps? :lol:

gerryhatrick · October 29, 2006

Edmonton Sun editorial:

As for Doggygate, our advice to the human culprits is this:
To Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay: Get over yourself. This isn't high school.

Comparing your former girlfriend to a dog because she dumped you may be forgivable coming from the captain of the football team. It's not acceptable from a cabinet minister.

MacKay, just apologize. That's what should have been done a week ago - and if you had, Peter, Doggygate would have, well, been put down quickly like an old mutt.

And stop spouting non-denial denials - that your insult wasn't recorded in Hansard or that you never called Belinda Stronach a dog. Nobody said you called her a dog as in "Belinda's a dog." They said you implied it in response to heckling.

Even staunch rightwing publications are calling him out. They are right, if he had just apologized it would have all gone away pretty much right away.

kimmy · October 29, 2006

So, the Liberals raised all kinds of uproar regarding the remark and even threatened to block House business until Stronach received an apology, now say that the remark isn't the issue, but rather that he denies having called her a dog. That's kind of a change in tune, isn't it?

It seems somewhat reminiscent of Kenneth Starr vs Bill Clinton. Starr was extremely concerned with Clinton's sexual impropriety... up until the point where Clinton was shown to have lied, at which point the sexual impropriety became a non-issue and the focus shifted to perjury.

However, just as Clinton equivocated the accusation based on the question of whether receiving a hummer constituted having sex with that woman, MacKay also has an out. He might have insinuated that Stronach is a dog, but he did not in fact *call* her one. While that might be quibbling over semantics, that's about as much respect as this "issue" deserves.

So, the other question. How big of a deal IS lying to Parliament, anyway?

There's no doubt that a great many lies have been uttered in the House over recent years (surely we all remember the Chretien era?) but how many have been proven to be lies? Well, there's one obvious example that stands out.

"They are burning crosses in Prince George as we speak!" Ok, she could have been exaggerating for dramatic effect.

But then she claimed to have a letter from the Mayor of Prince George documenting cross-burnings. Which was a bald-faced lie, and shows that the earlier statement was intended to be taken as fact.

Ok, so what consequences did Hedy Fry face for lying to Parliament in such brazen fashion? Yes, she was eventually shuffled out of Cabinet (because she was an embarrassment to the Liberals, not as punishment for having lied per se.) But did she face any censure from the Speaker or from Parliament? Aside from eventually being left out of Cabinet, did Fry face any punishment for having lied to Parliament? I don't recall that she did. I don't even recall her being forced to apologize.

If that's the precident for what happens when people lie to Parliament, then sorry, but no: lying to Parliament isn't a serious matter at all.

-k

gerryhatrick · October 29, 2006

So, the Liberals raised all kinds of uproar regarding the remark and even threatened to block House business until Stronach received an apology,

I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link?

now say that the remark isn't the issue, but rather that he denies having called her a dog.

I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link?

Liberals do not speak in one homogenous voice, but some are still saying the original comment is an issue and some are saying Mackay's lie in the House last week is an issue.

Your perception of an "about face" is not apparent.

gc1765 · October 29, 2006

So, the other question. How big of a deal IS lying to Parliament, anyway?
There's no doubt that a great many lies have been uttered in the House over recent years (surely we all remember the Chretien era?) but how many have been proven to be lies? Well, there's one obvious example that stands out.

"They are burning crosses in Prince George as we speak!" Ok, she could have been exaggerating for dramatic effect.

But then she claimed to have a letter from the Mayor of Prince George documenting cross-burnings. Which was a bald-faced lie, and shows that the earlier statement was intended to be taken as fact.

Ok, so what consequences did Hedy Fry face for lying to Parliament in such brazen fashion? Yes, she was eventually shuffled out of Cabinet (because she was an embarrassment to the Liberals, not as punishment for having lied per se.) But did she face any censure from the Speaker or from Parliament? Aside from eventually being left out of Cabinet, did Fry face any punishment for having lied to Parliament? I don't recall that she did. I don't even recall her being forced to apologize.

If that's the precident for what happens when people lie to Parliament, then sorry, but no: lying to Parliament isn't a serious matter at all.

-k

Hedy Fry eventually apologized for the incident:

"Yesterday, I mistakenly linked the city of Prince George with a specific hate activity," she says. "I regret that and I apologize to the people of Prince George."

Link

Yes, the apology was a bit late, but at least it came eventually. How long will it take MacKay to acknowledge what he said? Is it possible that Hedy Fry actually thought she recieved a letter from the mayor? No one ever said she was the brightest...

But that being said, let's say that Hedy's comments were a complete lie...would that make you more likely, or less likely to vote for her?