The timing and placement could may have been an example of political strategy. The MSM blew their brains out and skipped almost everything else in the Throne Speech and budget to chase this issue.

Was it predictable? I think so.

Please forgive my patting myself on the back (seeing as no one else will!).

I was right! This was an intentional diversionary tactic, one designed to shut up the gender-neutral crowd — not by saying “NO” to them but by saying “YES, we'll open the debate, we'll suggest a gender-neutral change” (and see what happens).

Overwhelmingly, what happened was the country said “NO-O-O-O way!”

So, now, PMSH and his party can't be blamed for saying no to a change. The Canadian public has spoken.

Well-done, Mr. Prime Minister. You're not thought of as a political strategist par excellence for nothing!

I'll pat you on the back! I think some of us certainly read the tea leaves on this one and what's there not to love and have a good chuckle over, hey? The usual suspects from the MSM are so pathetically predictable!

Thanks, Bec, isn't our Prime Minister awesome?! I'll bet he's having the last laugh!

I think this outrage re changing the lyrics sends another message also. That message is to the coalition coup planners, you will face this same outrage should you try your tricks again. And we didn't need a facebook page to do it.
I didn't know Layton needs glasses, he said he was tens of thousands out protesting prorogation. Wonder where he was looking.

oops, should be, he said he saw tens of thousands.

Always thought our Prime Minister had class! Listening to the electorate is another first for Canada/

If anyone is wondering about this female senator, lots of hits on google re her. And, if you are wondering why as a conservative, lesbian, she was appointed to sit as a conservative, ask Paul Martin, he appointed her on March 24, 2005.

So he was trying to focus voters attention away from the budget?

Mary T: ” … And, if you are wondering why as a conservative, lesbian, she was appointed …”

I knew this move was a sop to a feminist. Now I know her name …

And, trust a Liberal to have put her in the Senate. What's c/Conservative about her?

As much as I dislike Harper, you gotta admit that this was a good way to stop people from talking about how the budget and the throne speech are lacking in content. People will wake up next week and realize this government is nothing but a smokescreen for their inability to manage this Country with only 30% support and dropping.

The normal suspects here are just too embarrased to admit they support a ship of fools

Canadian nonsense…..surely you jest or you are a fool. I know the answer but will let you figure it out.

Everyone with any sense knew it was a diversionary tactic – designed to draw our attention away from the fact the Throne Speech was nothing but a repeat of what has come before.

Recalibration? I think not.

Will: “So he was trying to focus voters attention away from the budget?”

Not at all.

A Conservative Senator wanted the words changed to the national anthem to make it more gender neutral. I don't imagine this was high on the priority list of the Harper Government. On the other hand, these feminists (for the Conservative Senator is, apparently, a feminist and a lesbian — appointed by Martin [?]) are nothing if not persistent.

If Prime Minister Harper had ignored her request that “in all thy sons' command” be changed, he'd have been charged with being a male chauvinist, and his government would be labelled as bigoted and non-progressive.

So, PMSH figured that the best way to bell this cat, to cook this goose, was to suggest a change and see which way the wind blew on it, figuring out, pretty much, that the wind would be a fair one for those who wished to leave the anthem the way it was.

He was correct.

And the idiots in the MSM took the bait, hook, line, and sinker. They didn't have to make such a big deal of the anthem change. However, they saw an opportunity of heckling the PM and highlighting the “fact” (they thought) that this went against his party base. They played right into PMSH's hand.

There are times when I am delighted by the antics of the MSM — and this is one of those times. Thinking that they were damaging Stephen Harper, their #1 aim it seems, they actually became a part of his strategy.

Good one, Mr. Prime Minister.

Since this fantastic Prime Minister has taken office the media has been in a constant state of frenzy with a go get him mindset that has rendered them and the Liberals they shill for irrelevant. We are all so tired of the constant bashing and disrespect they show the man and Office of the Prime Minister while they continue their extreme behaviour, skewing the facts to manipulate opinion. It's over for them, the only people whose credibility is lost is the toadies who pass themselves off a journalists covering the politics of this country. It's at a point where folks are looking at the names of the regular writers/journalistas in the newspapers and pass them over and turning them off TV. The Prime Minister has quietly won and in big part it's due to ordinary people frequenting blogs like this and searching for the facts on their own.

Look, the anthem change was one tiny item in the Throne Speech.

Is it Prime Minister Stephen Harper's fault that the idiots in the media jumped on it and beat it to death, ad nauseum? If this was a “diversionary tactic,” then the media were the instruments of its delivery.

What a laugh. By thinking that highlighting this one, tiny item in the Throne Speech would be damaging to the Prime Minister and his party, the media actually helped him enormously. Nancy Ruth's suggestion was taken seriously by the PM and the Canadian public trounced it.

Now, on to serious business, something the media seems oblivious to, as they continue their partisan attacks on Canada's duly elected Prime Minister and his government.

I think it's called being hoisted on their own petard. 'Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch!

Hear! Hear!

I’m not sure what your comment is insinuating? I should hope its not assuming that because she is a lesbain how could she be conservative, hopefully you mean her having been appointed by Paul Martin. Sexual Orientation has little to do with what ones political ideology is and you only have to check blogging tories or look at candidates such as Lorne Mayencourt in Vancouver to know that there are many active Conservatives who also happen to be gay.

Gayle, that is correct. Rex Murphy Says it with his usual intelligent manner in today's NATPOST column.
When is Harper going to raise a storm over real issues?

Rex Murphy, National Post
Published: Saturday, March 06, 2010

Well, if the justification for taking a break was to refresh their intellectual batteries, then on the evidence of the prose of the Speech from the Throne, either the break wasn't nearly long enough, or those batteries are beyond all charging. It had more platitudes per square inch than a fortune-cookie factory, and its every grey platitude a garment of the dreariest cliche.

“In taking responsible steps to reduce the deficit, our Government will not repeat the mistakes of the past.” Poor Michaelle Jean — does she get hardship pay for having to voice such vacuous tosh? Not all her formidable charm or energy could infuse this poor sad pudding of relentless banality with a spark of life.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story….
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Terry Quinn Parnel personal insults on a blog you don't host?

If you don't work in the office of the PMO can you link the source of your claim?

It seems the PMO has the unique ability to put out these false flags for the media and opposition to go all in and blow their brains out.
The Torch Relay, Olympic logo were two recent examples on how the frothing Liberals were exclaiming political 'interference' without any proof and got caught offside by attacking the Olympic organizing committe, athletes and Hudson's Bay.

Instead of dealing with Jobs, economy, our budget the opposition and media are easily distracted. Almost like putting a carrot on a stick and having the ass pull your wagon.

It's called common sense.

That is probably why it eludes you.

ha ha ha

Hilarious. Simply hilarious.

It's all the feminists' fault Harper looked so stupid.

Anyway…

“Everyone with any sense knew it was a diversionary tactic ..”

Can you link the source, or are you making it up as usual?

So no proof, as I suspected. Thanks again for coming out, better luck next time.

Nice try CS.

Ha ha ha.

A source for common sense? I am not sure it would help you.

Our PM has lots of class & also brains I love when he gets the Msm in a tail spin they are so pro Liberal most people tune them out now a days

The usual suspects, including the trolls who frequent theses blogs fell for the bait. Yeah our awesome Prime Minister Stephen Harper is having the last laugh and he does it with such class.

The problem right from the get go was the fact people assumed that “Our Government will also ask Parliament to examine the original gender-neutral wording of the national anthem” meant the government is changing the anthem. It totally got blown out of proportion and the MSM did nothing to help the situation.
I am for the current lyrics. This was done to appease to some who did want it changed. When the brouhaha occured the government rightfully retracted.

I know the answer to that question. The answer is: neither a jester nor a fool. The one who posed the question, however…well, that's another Terry1, er Parnel, er…whatever.

The twits who get their shorts in a know over the wording of our national anthem are too thick to realize that it affects nothing in our day to day lives. I wonder if they'll put a sock(puppet) in it now that the MAJORITY of Canadians have DEMOCRATICALLY said 'no' to changing the wording. Wait, I know the answer to that question – no, they will not shut up. They will see this as one m ore piece of evidence that Stephen Harper hates women. Don't even try to figure out the logic – there is no logic to lefty arguments.

Uh, how did he look stupid, Gayle? Mr. Harper didn't try to steamroller this person but, rather, put it to us…the Canadian people…and we spoke and replied with a resounding 'no'. Gayle, this is democracy – something about which the Liberal party knows nothing. So, I ask you again, what is the basis for your fatuous remark? And, please back it up with facts and links. The media, as you will have seen, reported the democratically sought and followed will of the people – Canadian people.

I'm waiting, Gayle. And, please, don't let pesky facts get in the way of your reply.

Diversionary tactic? Do you have facts and proof to back up your fatuous remark, Gayle? No? I thought not. You're projecting again. Come to think of it, your comments rarely are based on actual fact but, rather, your own projections. Sorry, Gayle, it was not a diversionary tactic. The person who wanted to change the words is exactly the type of person whom you and your ilk say Mr. Harper hates: yikes – she's a woman, she's gay, and she's a feminist. Gasp – triple whammy because, according to your people, Mr. Harper hates all three of those kinds of people and here they are, all rolled up into one person. But, Mr. Harper, despite his imaginary hatred of gay feminist women, took her request and put it to the Canadian people and…guess what, Gayle, the MAJORITY of Canadian people OVERWHELMINGLY rejected the change in wording. No democratic deficit there, Gayle. Sorry, no diversionary tactic. Oh, and I know how you'll reply – no facts, just some supercillious juvenile nyah nyah type of remark. I look forwar to it. You never fail to disappoint.

No, no, no, Gayle. You insist that we deal only in facts. Funny, if I were to have said it was common sense, you'd be demanding facts, proof, links, a pint of my blood, etc. Sorry, Gayle, it cuts both ways. Conjecture, common sense, projection, opinion … none of that counts. But, I'll cut you some slack since you never let those pesky facts get in your way. Gayle, you're losing your touch. Tsk tsk. No facts, no proof – simply conjecture on your part. So sad to see you fall apart like this. The day that you need Parnel to bolster your fiction is the day that you should pack it in while you still have a shred of dignity left. I'll pray for you.

Ah, so ungracious in defeat. It takes a very small person to reject obvious defeat. Tsk tsk. Poor Gayle. I remember her well – before she started to fail and grasp at imaginary straws. I'll pray for you.

So, nothing? Just as I thought. Oh, Gayle, I am so sad for you. Really, I am. You're failing so miserably but you just can't seem to exit your obvious state of denial. I'll pray for you.

According to the Liberals, PM Harper hates women, gays, and feminist. So, given that the Liberals say that Mr. Harper is a dictator, how could she be a Conservative or even a conservative. According to the Liberals, it would seem that Mr. Harper would have had her banished. Gee, ya think that maybe the Liberals are lying when they say he hates gays, women and feminists?

Snort.

Do you know “my” people? Who, exactly, are “my” people? I did not know I had any?

Though I absolutely loe how the Harper apologists place the responsibility for this fiasco at the feet of someone besides Harper.

PS. Do you also happen to post as Canadian Sense? You have already admitted you sock puppet under different handles, and you both seem to have difficulty discerning fact from opinion, so I was wondering if you are actually the same person.

Did you know you just called the PMO a bunch of twits?

Shockingly, you have nothing to add but a personal attack.

How very like you.

Are you aware you have 8 posts up here, and not one of them addresses the topic? Each one is a personal attack.

Think about that.

brilliant.

Nice diversionary tactic, Gayle. Sorry, it just won't wash. Facts, Gayle, those pesky facts – of which you have none to back up your fatuous argument.

So, no facts, then. Tsk, tsk. Facts, Gayle, those pesky facts – of which you have none.

Still no facts, Gayle? No pesky facts? Tsk tsk.

Nope – Canadian Sense is his own self. I don't use that particular handle. Tsk, tsk. Still no facts. No pesky facts. Tsk tsk.

Gayle, if I wanted to call the PMO a bunch of twits, I would have been explicit. Nice diversionary tactic, though. But, still no facts, those pesky facts. Tsk tsk.

With regard to my use of two handles – since Gayle has indicated that she will use this as a diversionary tactic: I use one handle (East of Eden) for political blogs and I used my other handle on faith-based fora. You see, my faith-based handle is derived from the Bible and there is no way I would sully my Biblically-derived name on a political blog. As for my East of EDEN – it was not created for Biblical reasons but, rather, because I am from Manitoba and now live in Ontario – Manitoba is where I grew up and will always be a part of my heart – I consider Manitoba to be my own personal Eden and now I live eastward. Thus – East of Eden.

And that's a fact – a pesky fact which gets in the way of Gayle's spinning. Tsk tsk.

I can always tell when you've been foiled – you “snort”. Always. Tsk tsk, no facts. Those pesky facts.

Yes, I WAS wondering why a Liberal Prime Minister would appoint a Conservative to the Sentate. (Doesn't it seem strange to you?)

That is, unless he was hoping in some way to scupper the Conservatives by her vote, should the CPC ever get into power. It's a very strange move on Paul Martin's part — unless it was just that he was trying to be nice … not something I ever remember his trying to be when it came to the CPC.

Canada was formed in 1867 and in 2010, 143 years later, someone is still suggesting changes to the words of this song. At least we have selected an anthem much more quickly than the Americans, they didn’t make The Star-Spangled Banner their national anthem until 1931. That means that 156 years elapsed before they even had a national anthem.

Until 01 July 1980, our National Anthem was Got save the King/Queen.

So its only been 30 years, on July 1st, that we have had this anthem. Based on American experience, it might just turn out that we have another 126 years of politicians monkeying around with the words before we have a final version. Something to look forward to don’t you think?

Gayle: “Everyone with any sense knew it was a diversionary tactic”

To quote an infamous source, sources – references – cite the place from which your assumption springs. Surely it can’t be from you having any sense, because years of reading your inane, fatuous and just plain stupid comments prove you have no sense whatsoever. So, where is this knowledge springing from, Gayle?

Totally off-topic but I have to say that I'm pretty disgusted by the Jaffer verdict and his blatant dismissing of his culpability in his non-apology to the media. He apologized for driving carelessly but totally ignored his drunkeness and his cocaine possession. Although he was a Tory and although I am 100% partisan, I have to say that I hope he leaves the party and never returns. Political leanings aside, he is, IMHO, a sorry excuse for a man. I'm not impressed with his wife's behaviour, either. I, for one, will be happy to see the two of them go. We don't need that kind of individual in our party. It's a sad day for our justice system when somebody gets off that easily. Pretty disgusting.

I’m not entirely sure, however, I do believe she was originally appointed as a “progressive conservative” by Paul Martin and then later joined the Conservative caucus. I could be wrong though. I know he did appoint another “PC” member who still sits as such in the Senate. I think the move was intended to be a political move to further demonsrate the differences between Martin and Chretien. Martin being the “new Liberal”, above patronage and abuse of power. Remember, Martin was going to be the Liberal leader who finally delivered Liberal success in the populist west.

I agree with your assessment of Jaffer and his wife, unfortunately two of the entitled, me-me-me generation that's hurtling down the track towards the rest of us. We're going to see a lot more of this kind of bad behaviour, not acknowledged, not owned, but justified because they're somehow … special.

Hey, they've been told they're special by everyone along their trajectory, especially in our school system, which holds them (and parents) hostage for 12 years. Even if they haven't come up to snuff (sorry for this rather obtuse pun in Jaffer's case), they're told, “GOOD JOB!” “WAY TO GO!” All they have to have done was pick up their pencil — I guess a good job, seeing as half the kids these days don't come to school with even a fully functioning pencil, let alone their homework done.

E of E, Jaffer may still be a card carrying member of the Conservative party but the “verdict” handed down in his case has nothing to do with the Conservatives or their tough on crime agenda, it's a provincial judicial decision. Jaffer can rest assured our PM will never welcome him as a candidate for the party should he have any idea of running for office again. I was offended and sickened to watch the likes of Tom Clark start his show on the affair, confirming just how desperate the media is to GET something on the Conservatives.
As for Guergis, her behaviour isn't defensible, no one in the party is defending her, sometimes people do “lose it” for whatever reasons but we expect our MP's to be civil and in control of themselves. The media isn't so forgiving of Conservatives and it has nothing to do with higher standards, it's a double standard, it's all to do with politics, gotcha politics which is th only game in town for the Opps and their media shills.
How long did we hear about McCallum being refused boarding a plane because he was too inebriated? If he were Conservative it would be still talked about. Hell, they even tried to make a story about the Finance Minister's hair!

So, why did Rahim Jaffer get off so easily? What a miscarriage of justice.

Could it be because he is a member of a visible Muslim minority? If so, this is a travesty. Members of visible minorities should be held to the same standard as everyone else in this country. I'm sick and tired of special consideration if you belong to a visible minority, or a single-parent family, or are handicapped in any way. This is dumb-down justice and it stinks.

Dumb-down justice means no justice.

From what I read, the evidence was not handled properly and therefore the charges were dropped before he even went to court. What made me hurl was his non-apology for driving carelessly. It just make me sick when somebody who once represented my part is such a blatant slug.

I agree, Liz, that the media pounces on our party. For that reason, it infuriates me when members of our party behave in such a reprehensible manner. It would have been better if Jaffer had kept his yap shut after the ruling – he sounded so smug when he non-apologized for driving carelessly. He knows he is guilty as sin but he got away with potential murder. I would love to see him cross the floor and run for the Libs – and take his shrew of a wife with him. Neither is Conservative material. They belong in the LPC, not the CPC.

A former MP who gets off scott-free after being found drunk behind the wheel and in possession of coke is going to be front page news no matter what party they're from. You know why? Surprising as this may be to some, the media care more about selling papers than they do about smearing the conservatives. A tabloid-esq story about a coked-up, drunk, ex-MP whose wife just tried to trash an airport sells a lot of papers no matter what political party they belong to.

Could it be because he is a member of a visible Muslim minority?

It's cos he was an MP, and is married to a “minister”. But thanks for going there.

Who knows why the lenient sentence in contrast to the charges against him but he is not a Conservative MP, all we can do is be dumbfounded as are most people at the outcome. Anyone driving under the influence should at least lose their license but apparently Jaffer wasn't charged with that but rather “careless driving”. As for his wife's episode of temper, we are not amused with that either but is it more serious than stealing our money, millions of dollars, tossing it to the wind to buy votes a la Adscam and laughing it off? Or lying to the people about scraping the GST or Shawinigate? The Liberals have a severe case of amnesia, don't know who they are, where they are or where they are going with any thing. It's all a shot in the dark to find a REAL scandal that will hold and carry them to glory, it's got nothing to do with what's best for the country.

An election now would separate the wheat from the chafe, the people are NOT worried about the enemy Taliban, we care about the troops who are putting their lives on the line for all of us, including that boorish fool Ujjal Dosanjh and his incompetent leader.

The Librano$ take the cake for sleaze and corruption, that's for sure, so when a former Conservative MP behaves irresponsibly, it blackens the CPC “brand,” which is a real shame given the calibre of our Prime Minister and all of the hard work the other CPC MPs are putting in being responsible and accountable.

Seeing as Rahim Jaffer is no longer a CPC MP, it's a stretch for the other parties or the media to turn this into a CPC “scandale de la semaine,” which, of course, doesn't mean they won't try. What's reprehensible about the scandal mongering is that it in no way benefits the Canadian people, which is, supposedly, why the Opposition parties are sitting in the HOC — to help GOVERN Canadians not hold them hostage to their petty, vindictive, and mean-spirited political games and dirty tricks.

That's what the LPC and the media just don't get. More and more Canadians are getting really fed up with their antics, and can see right through them.

Nice try, kenn2, but Rahim Jaffer is not a sitting MP, he's an ex-MP.

He is married to a minister in the CPC cabinet. The court, however — as LizJ has pointed out — is a provincial, not federal, one and, as we all know, it's the Liberals who are in power in Ontario.

Jaffer should have had the book thrown at him. As I said, dumb-down justice, whatever the reason, is no justice.

Question: Is it at all possible for anyone who is not in the PMO to know why Harper wanted to change the anthem?
Answer: No
Question: Would anyone think someone opining on why Harper decided to change the anthem is expressing a statement of fact?
Answer: Only a complete moron would mistake that opinion for a statement of fact.

Now you have a good day.

From what I read, the evidence was not handled properly and therefore the charges were dropped before he even went to court. What made me hurl was his non-apology for driving carelessly. It just make me sick when somebody who once represented my part is such a blatant slug.

I agree, Liz, that the media pounces on our party. For that reason, it infuriates me when members of our party behave in such a reprehensible manner. It would have been better if Jaffer had kept his yap shut after the ruling – he sounded so smug when he non-apologized for driving carelessly. He knows he is guilty as sin but he got away with potential murder. I would love to see him cross the floor and run for the Libs – and take his shrew of a wife with him. Neither is Conservative material. They belong in the LPC, not the CPC.

A former MP who gets off scott-free after being found drunk behind the wheel and in possession of coke is going to be front page news no matter what party they're from. You know why? Surprising as this may be to some, the media care more about selling papers than they do about smearing the conservatives. A tabloid-esq story about a coked-up, drunk, ex-MP whose wife just tried to trash an airport sells a lot of papers no matter what political party they belong to.

Could it be because he is a member of a visible Muslim minority?

It's cos he was an MP, and is married to a “minister”. But thanks for going there.

Who knows why the lenient sentence in contrast to the charges against him but he is not a Conservative MP, all we can do is be dumbfounded as are most people at the outcome. Anyone driving under the influence should at least lose their license but apparently Jaffer wasn't charged with that but rather “careless driving”. As for his wife's episode of temper, we are not amused with that either but is it more serious than stealing our money, millions of dollars, tossing it to the wind to buy votes a la Adscam and laughing it off? Or lying to the people about scraping the GST or Shawinigate? The Liberals have a severe case of amnesia, don't know who they are, where they are or where they are going with any thing. It's all a shot in the dark to find a REAL scandal that will hold and carry them to glory, it's got nothing to do with what's best for the country.

An election now would separate the wheat from the chafe, the people are NOT worried about the enemy Taliban, we care about the troops who are putting their lives on the line for all of us, including that boorish fool Ujjal Dosanjh and his incompetent leader.

The Librano$ take the cake for sleaze and corruption, that's for sure, so when a former Conservative MP behaves irresponsibly, it blackens the CPC “brand,” which is a real shame given the calibre of our Prime Minister and all of the hard work the other CPC MPs are putting in being responsible and accountable.

Seeing as Rahim Jaffer is no longer a CPC MP, it's a stretch for the other parties or the media to turn this into a CPC “scandale de la semaine,” which, of course, doesn't mean they won't try. What's reprehensible about the scandal mongering is that it in no way benefits the Canadian people, which is, supposedly, why the Opposition parties are sitting in the HOC — to help GOVERN Canadians not hold them hostage to their petty, vindictive, and mean-spirited political games and dirty tricks.

That's what the LPC and the media just don't get. More and more Canadians are getting really fed up with their antics, and can see right through them.

Nice try, kenn2, but Rahim Jaffer is not a sitting MP, he's an ex-MP.

He is married to a minister in the CPC cabinet. The court, however — as LizJ has pointed out — is a provincial, not federal, one and, as we all know, it's the Liberals who are in power in Ontario.

Jaffer should have had the book thrown at him. As I said, dumb-down justice, whatever the reason, is no justice.

Question: Is it at all possible for anyone who is not in the PMO to know why Harper wanted to change the anthem?
Answer: No
Question: Would anyone think someone opining on why Harper decided to change the anthem is expressing a statement of fact?
Answer: Only a complete moron would mistake that opinion for a statement of fact.

Now you have a good day.