Mike Duffy hints at summer election? Or is the media election-biased?

In the mainstream media, they’re at it again! Everyone seems to be asking about the next federal election. To describe elections as the Superbowls of politics would be accurate in significance but overstated in frequency; unfortunately for those of us that live and breathe one writ-drop at a time, there doesn’t seem to be another one so soon on the horizon.

The Prime Minister has stated as much. In a recent press conference, Stephen Harper made mention that party leaders should be focused on the economy rather than hitting the hustings.

So, what’s got the media in a tizzy today? Well, it’s a weekday so it must be any desperate thread of a future election. The “news” today is that Sen. Mike Duffy gave a speech to the Charlottetown Rotary Club where he “hinted” at an election. Let’s take a look at the headline from The Charlottetown Guardian that followed.

“Duffy’s speech hints at looming federal election”

After unexpectedly taking notice to what would otherwise be a hum-drum article from the Island, we find ourselves somewhat disappointed after scanning Duffy’s quotes looking for an explicit or even implicit election “hint”. The article seemingly apologizes at the end but provides an excuse for misleading us,

“He made no mention of an election during his speech on Monday, but used rhetoric reminiscent of an electioneering politician.”

A politician speaking about politics outside of an election?
Dog bites man.

The media, trying to find any reason for us to take notice? Desperate for increased readership and future windfall of ad dollars that come during an election?
Also par for the course.

But was Sen. Duffy’s speech even filled with rhetoric? Let’s take a closer look,

The speech is hardly filled with partisan rhetoric and does not mention Stephen Harper or an election once. The most political item is where Duffy says that he and Minister Gail Shea will fight for Islanders.



239 thoughts on “Mike Duffy hints at summer election? Or is the media election-biased?”

  1. When are you going to start debating instead of trying to beat up on me here.

    You're the fool if you look at your posting history.

  2. Here's the good Christian evangelical values you speak of:


    “Couples like the Zumbruns are caught between two powerful forces — evangelical Christianity's abstinence culture, with its chastity balls and virginity pledges, and societal forces pushing average marriage ages deeper into the 20s.

    The call for young marriage raises questions: How young is too young? What if marriage is viewed as a ticket to guilt-free sex? What about the fact that marrying young is the No. 1 predictor of divorce?

    The conversation is spreading from what pastors say is a relatively small number of churches and ministries that promote early marriage to the broader evangelical community, with the latest development being a Christianity Today magazine cover story this month titled “The Case for Young Marriage.”
    These are posts in the comments from the article linked above:
    “As someone who was “saved” at nineteen and who subsequently spent fourteen years as a member of an evangelical church, I can confirm that all the evangelical movement has as a weapon to keep sway over their congregation is xenophobis fear and a twisted sense of morality – specifically “you are better than others because you are going to heaven” and “sex is beautiful and natural only if you're in a church approved marriage”. What would Jesus do indeed.”
    “Hey, let's really go for historical, religious, and dogmatic rigour here and start just selling the pre-pubescent girls to whichever man can pay the most! It was good enough for those characters in the Bible, it should be good enough for them now!

    Early marriage (by 12 or earlier for girls, 14 to 20 for boys) was quite common a few hundred years ago. I guess these people just keep having to look backwards in order to keep their ever-present grip on a seemingly increasingly credulous bunch of followers.
    The phrase “purity pledges” makes me shudder. Screw around safely,experienece life, get married when you're older and maybe your marriage will last. These child bride and grooms are going to wonder about life and what they've missed when they're a bit older. I'm so glad I grew up in promiscuous times! I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for these comments but that article made me want to gag.
    “I think we should encourage, boost, support as much as possible the concept of “being sure”, “certain”, “absolutely certain”. That way, perhaps evangelicals will put off marriage until they are 60? 70?, hopefully 80, and infertile. Ergo the disease will die out soon and the world will be rid of another ludicrous problem”
    “I guess articles like this get published in Stephen Harper's Canada”
    I see this religion as the so called “catholicism of Quebec” pre 1960. Keep 'em dumb, get 'em married early and keep stufifng the good word down their throats.
    That's the religion Harpo follows.

  3. switchback O'Taylor……………………I studied more of St. Augustine and Thomas More than you could ever imagine.

    The issue you don't get is the pure separation of church and state in a modern society.

  4. I'm also pretty sure that you don't know much at all based on your posts.

    It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt…

    Words to live by you greasy persistent troll.

  5. Gabby, the law of the land is the constitution and Martin tested that with constitutional experts who all said he would lose if he tried a charter case on SSM. Its very interesting you didn't do any research on Martin's issues with the issue. There is plenty of that.

    Your comments on harper speech in the HOC is pretty opposite to what he has said in his NCc days and as late as 2003 as a Reformer. His hypocrisy shows through in spades as I've noted in my long post that had lots of good stuff from the Walrus article.

    By the way your continued rude comments about Warren kinsella deserve this little ditty on his competence:
    “Warren Kinsella’s new book is a must-read for anyone interested in political campaigning in Canada. And not just political campaigning.…I wish I’d had the chance to read The War Room before I became Stephen Harper’s campaign manager; it might have saved me from many mistakes and months of painful learning on the job.”

    – Tom Flanagan, The Literary Review of Canada

  6. Is that why you keep your posts down to one liners….or is it because you are the greasy,persistent and a troll. I don't want your title because it would signify I'm an angry white reformatort.

  7. Doesn't your bridge miss you when you leave home?

    Do you have green skin or is that a rumour? Do you club children then eat their bones, or just eat the children? I have so many questions about your rare but idiotic kind.

  8. “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community”

    I'm not one to post definitions usually. Fight fire with fire I guess.

  9. nah, you're right. pedophile type comments are your thing as witness your two posts about eating children.

  10. It's weird you went there.

    Not unexpected but weird.

    For real, tell me more about your trollish species… are all trolls green or is that a maturity thing?

  11. Agreed Parnella.

    I've never seen trolling take hold in a subject so badly. I wonder how long he/she can last out in the light of day.

  12. “It's not me it's you”

    So by elimination we know that terry is probably about 10 and it's past his naptime.

  13. Parnella, if I may, I believe there's a little correction needed in your comment:
    “the Liberals are not in power, it's driving them to all sorts of inane actions and comments.”

    Am I mistaken?
    Didn't you intend to write insane, given the behaviour of the Toxic Troll on this blog? 😉

  14. Terry1, don't you ever get tired of regurgitating the same old tired cud you’ve chewed over and over again?

    “Your comments on Harpo's speech in the HOC is pretty opposite to what he has said in his NCC days …”
    If you insist on revisiting Stephen Harper's ancient history, then you must use the same look-back at some of your icons, who changed their position on many a policy.

    Go back to 1999, when a majority of MPs voted to retain the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

    June 8, 1999, House of Commons debate on the definition of marriage:
    “Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved:  
    • “That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada. ….”

    Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): “Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the motion this morning on behalf of the Government of Canada.

    Let me clearly state that the Government of Canada will be supporting the motion in the House today. …

    We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us. …

    Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. …”

    See, Terry1? That was Liberal Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada Anne McLellan, speaking on behalf of the Chretien government.
    Just a few years later, the Liberals changed position.

    BTW, I notice you’re still trying to outdo Pinocchio:
    “By the way your continued rude comments about Warren kinsella …”
    If calling WK your oracle or your idol is rude, then I plead guilty, for it must cause him to wince at the thought of being associated with the likes of you.
    I wouldn't call that rude, though, I'd call it downright painful.

  15. Gabby , when Harper got to power, he in fact kept many of the political staffer from the previous leader on. Of course Terry could not know that, he lives in a world of his own.

  16. English teach aka gabby………..positions of governments changed over SSM due to constitutional concerns. You just don't get it. everyone was against it until thye fully understood the charter and how it described indvidual rights and freedoms. Would you also like me to dig up the piece that Harpo wrote about the the charter giving too many individual rights and freedoms and thus his position on SSM.

    Of more joyful news here is the latest Nanos poll done while Iggy was supposed to have been invisible:

    Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only – First Preference)

    Committed Voters – Canada (N=845, MoE ± 3.4%, 19 times out of 20). The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the last Nanos Omnibus Survey conducted in June 2009.
    Liberal 33.8% (-2.5)
    Conservative 31.3% (-0.9)
    NDP 18.7% (+1.9)
    BQ 9.2% (-0.6)
    Green 7.0% (+2.2)
    Undecided 15.7% (-6.5)

    Best PM Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Rotate] The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the Nanos Omnibus Survey conducted in April 2009.
    Stephen Harper 29.5% (-2.7)
    Michael Ignatieff 26.2% (-1.2)
    Jack Layton 15.2% (+2.3)
    Gilles Duceppe 5.8% (-0.2)
    Elizabeth May 4.0% (-2.0)
    None of them 7.4% (+0.6)
    Unsure 11.9% (+3.2)

    Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [unprompted] The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the last Nanos Omnibus Survey conducted in June 2009.
    Jobs/economy 30.3% (-5.4)
    Healthcare 26.1% (+4.9)
    The environment 9.4% (-0.1)
    Education 4.1% (-0.8)
    Unsure 12.5% (+0.6)

  17. I watched an Interview with the Archbishop of Calgary who said : ” If Chretien had come to my church I would have refused to give him Communion”. I guess that says it all as far as Chretien's relegion is concerned.

  18. Omanator, You have echoed my reasons why there is separation of church and state. Right wing religious nut bars are not all evangelists but most of them are and that archbishop has made some pretty ludicrous comments in his time. He also said divorce is immoral.

  19. Yes, both insane and inane are fitting adjectives. 😉

    If Toxic Troll 1 is an example of the best the Liberals have to put up to debate issues on blogs, they have a problem.

    Liberals have a tough time reading true facts presented on Conservative blogs, the truth in many cases is damaging to them. They try to defend the indefensible, when that fails they hijack the threads with name calling. exhibit A: comments by Toxic Troll 1 on this blog.

    We all know they can't handle how well our PM is doing on the world stage and at home so they move on to attack his personality, it's schoolyard level mentality. Appears the big boss in the Liberal bunker condones such behaviour. Not too surprising.

  20. The debate ended long ago with your first comments.

    Your obsessive hatred for all things Conservative and the Prime Minister in particular seems to have blown your mind.

    You are not debating, you are here to stifle debate with insults, now you're whining about getting beat up on. Take some time out, get a grip on yourself.

  21. ah but the latest Nanos poll doesn't do your guy any good having had the summer to boondoggle all over the country splashing money everywhere. I don't see Harpo's leadership qualities showing up there. Our guy has only been around for six months and has kept very close to a sitting PM who has been his party leader for over six years.

    My insults are only in keeping with reformatort tradition of down and dirty politics based on character assasinations that you jokers call truth ads.

    Mine are truthful also and the fact they draw out so many refromatort looney bin types makes my day .

  22. Funny how you are the most prolific commenter, Ter-Ber. We're not the ones using rude language, Ter-Ber. I think you're obsessed with us and you are addicted to this blog.

  23. Whoa – totally wrong, fallopian features. I have the feeling that when you were hatched, the doc slapped your mom for bringing you into the world.

  24. From the Halton Libs. (http://www.haltonliberals.ca/)
    “On behalf of the Halton Federal Liberal Association, we welcome Deborah Gillis as our Halton Federal Liberal Candidate.”

    From the Caledon Citizen (http://www.caledoncitizen.com/news/2009/0611/ne…)
    “The high-profile ex-MP, bestselling author and financial guru has been invited by the Dufferin — Caledon Liberal Association to throw his hat in the ring for a federal election, expected later this year. Turner recently moved back into Caledon, where he is restoring the 1855 Cataract Inn”

    I believe Ignat pushed to have Deborah Gillis nominated so there would be greater gender parity in the LPC. She's a lobbyist for Catalyst (an NGO for Women in Business) and a cancer survivor. Halton hangs in the balance… though I think Harper's large government Conservatism plays well in the Greenbelt.

    Catalyst (http://www.catalyst.org/page/59/about-us)
    “Founded in 1962, Catalyst is the leading nonprofit membership organization working globally with businesses and the professions to build inclusive workplaces and expand opportunities for women and business.”

  25. I think he'll be featured on next week's Intervention on A&E.

    Step 1… Admitting that he has a problem… always the hardest.

  26. Terri suffers from an extreme form of Leftist Mental Disorder, other Liberals have it to varying degrees.

  27. Terri suffers from an extreme form of Leftist Mental Disorder, other Liberals have it to varying degrees.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *