Sure, but having piles of natural resources did not prevent our economy from being in the crapper in the past …
That story doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.
Me either.
Pretty damned convenient that it just happened to be a Muslim woman who was kicked out.
For all I know right now, this could be a completely valid story, but something just doesn’t sound right. Are the Facebook pages of all rally attendees typically reviewed? I would think not.
I don’t know who might be behind this, but I’m guessing that she did something to intentionally get kicked out and then went straight to the CBC with the story.
I absolutely do not ascribe to conspiracy theories, but there’s something else going on with this story.
What did Harper do, other than not fix something that didn’t need fixing? And did he do it for me? Apparently, according to the Conservative ad mentioned above, I can expect federal politicians to do things for me. That seems to be the Liberals’ big failing according to the Conservatives. Nothing to do with policy, Ignatieff’s just a big meanie who didn’t come back for us. Wah!
In other words, what a meaningless advertisement. Positively American in political content.
At $28 a barrel to extract, bitumen wasn’t much of an economic saviour until the price shot over that.
According to the Chronicle Herald, the conservatives also turned away a Dartmouth volunteer who helps homeless veterans from a rally in Halifax.
I hope the tightness of the control surrounding events featuring Prime Minister Harper will begin to count against him. Certainly Michael Ignatieff has displayed much more openness, as well as a lot of class when a man in Winnipeg refused to shake his hand. Rather than a Lucien Bouchard-style explosion, he merely said ‘Enjoy your lunch.’
Follow up story can be found here. It is also from the CBC, so if you discount them altogether as a news source, that’s your call. However, I would point out that there is a quotation from John Baird -
If he’d wanted to deny the story altogether, that would have been a good moment. He does not seem to be denying the story. He went on to work in a shot about Michael Ignatieff’s acomplishments while out of the country.
However, I think the best shot of the whole thing has been Mr. Ignatieff’s
Awaiting further developments…
It unquestionably happened, guys. The details are well described in major, reliable media sources. It’s obviously an embarassment for Harper, and he’d be well advised to apologize (which the Conservative Party has already done, but he should apologize personally.)
I don’t see any reason to doubt it happened.
The problem for the liberals is that, so far, they are running a smoother and I think better campaign than the cons - but they just can’t get any traction in the polls.
What they need is a real scandal - something with legs, that will last right to voting.
I don’t doubt something happened, but I am having a very hard time believing that it happened the way the media is describing it. Who in Harper’s camp didn’t know how this would play in the media? Why wouldn’t they want Ignatieff supporters at their rally so they can convert them? I just feel we’re missing some critical detail to make it make sense, because it doesn’t make sense to me now.
What is it you doubt? What’s unbelievable about it? Two women were told that they were known to have attended a Liberal rally and were told to get out. Some fool in security overreacted; nobody has suggested, nor is it even logical to assume, that Harper himself or anyone particularly close to him ordered the ejections. We know for a fact that people are vetted before attending many of the Conservative events. Perhaps most importantly, nobody in the Conservative camp has denied the claims. What’s to doubt?
Anyway…
I agree with Malthus - to date the Liberals have run a much, much better campaign, a shockingly good campaign, and the Conservatives had made a series of gaffes. But Canadians just don’t want Michael Ignatieff to be the Prime Minister.
Current www.threehundredeight.com projects the Tories will nab 154 seats, exactly half. And that’s after a BAD week for the Tories. The Liberals need the Tories to keep screwing up, a lot.
However, there are some indications that overall numbers are trending towards a narrowing of the gap. It has to change a hell of a lot more for the Liberals to have a hope in hell, but it has changed a bit. I suspect this is a bad sign for the Liberals; if you have a great week, and the best thing you can say is “well, things have slightly narrowed a bit,” what happens after you have a bad week?
We’ll see. I’m amazed at how the Grits are outcampaigning the Tories so far - who knows, maybe the Tories will implode.
To be fair, the Conservatives are afraid that they will be the subject of protests, heckling or that they will be punked by ‘This Hour’. Certainly, I would welcome the opportunity to shake the hand of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and respectfully ask him something awkward like ‘What is the truth about Afghan detainees being tortured? Why hasn’t the government called a full inquiry instead of hindering the process?’. The fact that I would like to do this is why there are people whose job it is to keep me away from Conservative rallies. Sadly, those people seem to have been overzealous. Twice.
And now there’s this ad, linked in the Globe and Mail article. It does indeed look like a plagiarism of Tea Party Governor Tim Pawlenty’s ad. It rather interferes with the message that Michael Ignatieff has spent too much time in the US, to have the Cons putting out this kind of dreck. I liked it much more when the Conservatives plagiarized the Australians.
And what the Hell is this sixty second tautology about, anyway? “Ocean. Snow. Canada. Hockey. When I speak, jets fly through the sky. Cowboys. Toronto. Proud. Vancouver. Prairie. Nonsense. Blather. Substance in five years when we balance the budget…”
I’m hoping the Conservatives continue with this election strategy.
So that’s the norm - if you’re known to have attended a rival party’s rally, you’re not welcome at the other one? What’s the news story then?
I wouldn’t have said that was the norm for rallies. There are certainly events which are restricted to party members - conventions, nominations, some types of fund-raisers. Public rallies, though? I can’t remember being at one where I’ve been asked to pre-register and be vetted at the venue. Anyone else? (I’m not trying to bait anyone, here - I’m genuinely curious…)
How did you get that it’s the normal practice for all parties out of that?
I do recall an appearance by Pierre Trudeau at the University of Toronto’s Scarborough College in about November, 1979. It was open to the public, unvetted; but needless to say, most of the audience was made up of university students. I was in the audience, being a U of T student at the time, and having classes at Scarborough, and being interested in the issues of the day. And besides, I wanted to hear Trudeau speak–regardless of what I may or may not have thought of him, he was a powerful orator and one I wanted to hear speak.
The hall where Trudeau spoke wasn’t really a proper auditorium or hall at all, just a large area that hundreds of students passed through daily. On weekends, it was used for parties; at other times, it might have art exhibitions or tables set up for campus groups to promote themselves. If you’re familiar with Scarborough College, it was the “Meeting Place.” For Trudeau’s appearance, though, it had a podium and chairs for the audience.
There was plenty of security. Uniformed RCMP officers and Metro Toronto police mingled with campus cops in and around the crowd. Not to be outdone by the professionals, the Student Council had also called out its bouncers; who were normally used for parties. Undoubtedly, there was plenty of unmarked security as well. After all, Trudeau was the PM at the time; and as head of government (and remember our timeframe–it hadn’t been ten years since the FLQ crisis and Rene Levesque’s Parti Quebecois was fanning the flames of separatism in Quebec and would hold a referendum on separatism a few months later, in 1980), he was a target. Not necessarily of the PQ, but of any crank or crackpot that wanted to take a shot at him. Naturally, there was plenty of media there as well: print, TV, and radio.
In addition, the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan a short time before. This bothered the Americans, and as their closest ally, what would Canada do? Trudeau wasn’t saying–he was campaigning for re-election.
In the end, Trudeau spoke, took questions from the crowd, and provided the networks with an evening news broadcast, and the papers with something to report and comment on. But what they commented on was more than just what Trudeau said.
At some point during Trudeau’s speech, a Conservative supporter unfurled a banner which read, “Trudeau Gutless in Face of Soviet Oppression in Afghanistan.” This lasted only a moment or two, until one of the Student Council bouncers grabbed the banner and threw it away, grabbed the Conservative, and took him outside, where he and a few other bouncers did a number on him. As I recall, an ambulance had to be called.
This was the incident from Trudeau’s 1979 Scarborough College speech that the TV and papers reported on. And the media had a field day: “Free Speech Dead at U of T” was one of the headlines I recall. Op-ed columnists of all political stripes nationally went crazy. The University itself was in an uproar.
In the end, things returned to normal, as they tend to do in Canada. We returned to classes. The election happened, Joe Clark’s Tories won a minority, only to be defeated in a non-confidence vote when they introduced their budget a few months later. Another election was called. And history went on.
This may not be exactly what you’re looking for, Le Ministre, but it’s an example of–well, maybe not exactly a rally, but it’s certainly something. Nobody was vetted prior to attending; it was open to all. Unfortunately, I cannot find any “easy” links to media reportage at the time, though I am certain it is available to subscribers of the major online media. But I was there, and I remember the incident. Heck, I watched it happen.
I’m no fan of Duceppe’s politics, but this is pretty damn funny: “Harper should have invited Carson (Harper’s much-maligned adviser) to a Conservative rally - then he would have been screened”
I’m trying to understand what happened at the rally, because as it is being reported, it doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t know what goes on at rallies or in the vetting for rallies. Either the Tory security was indeed overzealous (and shockingly blind to how it would play in the media) or it was simply business as usual.
I guess, like RickJay, I’m finding it hard to understand why you find this possibility (which is what I believe happened) so hard to believe, especially when no one is denying it.
So what do you folks think about the contempt of parliament ruling?
The ruling was made by an impartial party (the Speaker). Would giving the Conservatives a majority be saying that being in contempt of parliament is acceptable to us?
Interesting opinion piece on this: Home | Ottawa Citizen