Liberal Meme Watch

Liberal Meme: Stephen Harper is not the internationalist that Michael Ignatieff is, the latter more worldly, well-traveled and well-lettered. Stephen Harper has tarnished Canada’s reputation on the international stage through a style that eschews Canada’s traditional “nuanced” approach and “honest-broker” status.

Today’s sighting of this Liberal meme: Susan Delacourt’s blog

Susan Delacourt publishes screenshots from the UN webcast and CTV newsnet that show the differences between the audiences that Stephen Harper, Barack Obama and the President of Switzerland received at the UN. As you can see from Delacourt’s blog, PM Harper’s speech wasn’t very well attended while Obama’s speech and that of the Swiss President were packed.

You see, as the tipster (one presumes) that sent Susan the screenshots would argue, Michael Ignatieff would have packed the house and could convince the world to welcome Canada back to the the cocktail parties in midtown Manhattan!

However, the presumed tipster neglected to send other screenshots of the audiences received by other leaders. These pictures would have helped put things in more context:


China – a permanent member of the UN security council and most populous nation


Iraq – certainly the focus of much international attention over the past few years


Malawi – larger audience. Why? Switzerland preceded Obama’s speech and Malawi followed it. (delegates were probably still gathering their briefcases before ditching the Malawi speech)

So the audience sizes are more related to the ability of the US to draw a crowd. Isn’t context important? If Canada was snubbed, was China snubbed, was Iraq snubbed?

Most notable previous use of the media to falsely push this Liberal meme: Stephen Harper snubbed at the White House! (do check out the link)

You can almost sense the Ignatieff envy.

Comments

comments

  • Anonymous

    You of course realize that Stephen’s piece is based on a BLOG, which is pretty much by definition a place for expressing one’s opinion? although in some cases their bosses may encourage them along an … ummm, how shall I put it? … an ideological line. Everybody knows that most major newspapers, particularly when they are one of many competing in a big market, have an editorial stance. Take … Toronto. We have the Star (arguably Liberal-ish), the Nat’l Post (cognac conservatives with portfolios), duh Sun (Conservative for people who can’t spell conservative), and the Globe and Mail (which I would argue is pretty centrist). So, explain to me how this translates to “Librul media”?(I accept that hatred for the CBC is a given for CPC members. It’s how you recognise each other)As for the complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”, I’m sorry your powers of observation and critical thinking have been clouded by your own partisanship. There’s that ideology again coming to the fore.Sorrry about your poor comprehension. I said that this employer’s ‘agenda’ thing and charge of incompetence are unfounded.

    You don’t have a lot of info with which to conclude who/what exactly I’m for (… and I like it that way). So calling ME a partisan/lackey/syncophant is somewhat lame. Unless you’re taking trolling lessons from CanadianDense.

  • Anonymous

    You of course realize that Stephen’s piece is based on a BLOG, which is pretty much by definition a place for expressing one’s opinion? although in some cases their bosses may encourage them along an … ummm, how shall I put it? … an ideological line. Everybody knows that most major newspapers, particularly when they are one of many competing in a big market, have an editorial stance. Take … Toronto. We have the Star (arguably Liberal-ish), the Nat’l Post (cognac conservatives with portfolios), duh Sun (Conservative for people who can’t spell conservative), and the Globe and Mail (which I would argue is pretty centrist). So, explain to me how this translates to “Librul media”?(I accept that hatred for the CBC is a given for CPC members. It’s how you recognise each other)As for the complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”, I’m sorry your powers of observation and critical thinking have been clouded by your own partisanship. There’s that ideology again coming to the fore.Sorrry about your poor comprehension. I said that this employer’s ‘agenda’ thing and charge of incompetence are unfounded.

    You don’t have a lot of info with which to conclude who/what exactly I’m for (… and I like it that way). So calling ME a partisan/lackey/syncophant is somewhat lame. Unless you’re taking trolling lessons from CanadianDense.

  • Anonymous

    You wrote this:

    Of course not getting the facts suits their purpose, the truth doesn’t fit in with their agenda. I’m sick of them. Lucky for them their employers are on the same page or they’d be fired for incompetence.

    And I mocked it. So, hell yeah… more than a dose…

    I already know you’re smarter than that. So why do you keep parroting such nonsense? God knows there’s more than enough REAL ammo to fire at all the political parties.

  • Gabby in QC

    “You of course realize that Stephen’s piece is based on a BLOG … “
    And you DO realize that readers of a blog, be it written by a professional journalist or a dilettante, have a right to react to a blog post in whichever way they choose? Some may view the post negatively, others positively. Are you the arbiter of how they should react?

    “Everybody knows that most major newspapers … have an editorial stance.”
    Aren’t you essentially acknowledging that what I said is true? That there are journalists and media with a particular agenda or bias? So what’s your beef?

    “I accept that hatred for the CBC is a given for CPC members. It’s how you recognise each other.”
    And I recognize progressives by the condescension they show towards people who dare have a different POV than their own. Just because we taxpayers pay for it doesn’t mean we have to like it. But I’ll let you in on a little secret: I watch CBC on a regular basis.

    “Sorrry about your poor comprehension.”
    Ah! the classic progressive line. So original. Another sure way to recognize progressives: they always claim to possess comprehension skills superior to those of their interlocutors.

    “So calling ME a partisan/lackey/syncophant is somewhat lame. Unless you’re taking trolling lessons from CanadianDense.”
    More evidence of a progressive mind:
    • putting words in my mouth, ascribing words to me I never used, like lackey/syncophant [sic]
    • resorting to name-calling: CanadianDense
    • bristling at the mere thought of being called a “Librul” [sic] — which I did not do, BTW
    • refusing to admit to being partisan.
    If you aren’t partisan, why do you grace us with your presence, arguing with conservatives here? C’mon, there’s no shame in admitting to being partisan. Try it, you’ll like it!

  • Gabby in QC

    Stephen, I’m getting this message when I try to post a comment at the previous thread “Candice Hoeppner interview.”

    bad JSON: {“method”: “postComment.onFailure”, “params”: [{“message”: “Get thee some captcha”, “code”: “captcha-required”, “succeeded”: false, “request”: {“post”: {“message”:

  • batb

    In the Librano$, the Dippers, and the Blocheads (please allow me a little fun, Stephen!), we have the Disloyal Opposition and in the Canadian media, with all the Susans, the Don Newmans, the Jim Travers, Craig Olivers, Jane Tabers, et al., we have the Unelected Opposition.

    It’s a miracle that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his CPC are still governing and doing such a GR-8 job! Now, PMSH has a new and very capable Chief of Staff in Nigel Wright. Despite the Disloyal and the Unelected Opposition, the CPC are moving forward and I am very proud of them.

  • Liz J

    ‘Tis indeed a miracle we are witnessing with this Prime Minister, getting the job done, keeping his cool, it is amazing.

  • Anonymous

    Your first paragraph… sorry, you lost me. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make there.

    Re -media bias: the point I’m trying to make there is that the papers (and the rest of Cdn media) pretty much cover the political spectrum, yet posters routinely accuse the media, as a whole, of being Liberal-biased. It’s really lame.

    Re “Sorrry about your poor comprehension.” – not condescension; correction. You said:
    As for the complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”…

    … I didn’t say that. There’s enough in my posts to criticize without making stuff up.

    Re: “calling ME a partisan/lackey/syncophant”

    ah. I see you don’t like being misquoted, either. You are correct, you haven’t included the other two… but others have, so, being a public post, I thought I’d try to address those as well.

    CanadianDense has laboured long and hard to earn my disrespect. Don’t go undoing all his/her hard work.

    The partisan/lackey/syncophant thing. I get that alot – as if I’m some sort of paid Liberal operative. It’s flattering, but far from the truth. The only person here, who we know with certainty is employed by a political party, is Mr Taylor. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and I’m very interested in his perspective.

    Why I don’t consider myself a partisan:
    – I don’t ignore the mistakes or misdeeds of parties I may sympathise with.
    – I don’t uncritically celebrate every win of “my side”, no matter how dirty or pointless
    – I really don’t have a solid party allegiance at this point. I am certainly more centrist than the CPC (which puts me to the left of y’all)
    – I loathe ignorance, spin and lies, and when people blow smoke up each other’s backsides

    There. That should give everyone enough to bash me with, without the lackey stuff.

  • Liz J

    Your reply to Gabby here of has a tone of condescension and arrogance.

    Calling another commenter “CanadianDense” as a smart ass play on his moniker belies any attempt you may have to pose as a civil debater.

    Your reply also brings to mind a song that goes : “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when your perfect in every way”. Familiar with that one Kenn2?

  • Gabby in QC

    Kenn2 writes: “Your first paragraph… sorry, you lost me. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make there.”
    • You apparently forgot you wrote this in reply to my previous comment: “You of course realize that Stephen’s piece is based on a BLOG …”

    Kenn2 writes: “Re -media bias: … posters routinely accuse the media, as a whole, of being Liberal-biased. It’s really lame.”
    • I haven’t come across any definitive studies on the political leanings of the Canadian media, but similar studies in the US have shown that the media generally does tend leftwards. Personally, I tend to judge individual reporters/columnists/pundits rather than news organizations. This particular blog post (the one by Susan Delacourt) was regrettably nothing more than snide sneering commentary.

    Kenn2 writes: “Re “Sorrry about your poor comprehension.” – not condescension; correction. You said:
    As for the complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”…
    … I didn’t say that. There’s enough in my posts to criticize without making stuff up. “
    • Ahem … please check your reply to Liz J, where you said: “are they [media/journalists] faithfully executing the ‘agenda’ laid out by their evil masters, or are they simply incompetent journalists? Both suggestions are breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded, but your arguments might gain a whiff of plausibility if there was some some base level of consistency.”

    Kenn2 writes: “ah. I see you don’t like being misquoted, either.”
    • Misquoted? You and I differ on the meaning of misquote. To misquote someone is to jumble the original meaning and/or words of a speaker. For example [from Wiki]:
    « “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”
    — Often attributed to Winston Churchill, The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): “Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.” It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): “Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.” »

    So, Kenn2, attributing the words “lackey/syncophant” to me is not “misquoting” me, it is invention, to use a polite word. And if you bother to re-read the comments made by others here, I don’t see anyone else using those terms except you.

    Kenn2 writes: “The partisan/lackey/syncophant thing. I get that alot – as if I’m some sort of paid Liberal operative. … “
    • If it’s any consolation, the same accusation has often been levelled at me, accusing me of being paid to “spread the PMO’s talking points.”

    And as far as Stephen Taylor is concerned, I haven’t seen, nor would I presume to ask to see, whether he’s remunerated by the Conservative Party. That is an assumption on your part.
    It may surprise you, but some people actually do things out of conviction rather than out of personal gain, monetary or otherwise.

    Kenn2 writes: “Why I don’t consider myself a partisan: …”
    • Funny, my perception of you is not of a tabula rasa. I interpret your “non-alignment” as an anti-Harper stance … which is, of course, your prerogative. But fear not, I’m not on a proselytizing mission here.

    Kenn2 writes: “That should give everyone enough to bash me with, without the lackey stuff.”
    • You’re not playing the victim card, I hope!

  • Anonymous

    You could maybe refute my arguments, then, but you yourself would rather get into name-calling too.

    …S’ok. I’m getting used to it.

  • Anonymous

    The horse is truly dead. I too want to stop whipping it.I’ll just try these:And if you bother to re-read the comments made by others here, I don’t see anyone else using those terms except you.What, are you NEW? I get called that alot (also shill, hack etc)… especially by my friend CD.Re our host Stephen – don’t be naive. He works at the Manning Centre. That hotbed of socialism….Oh, and are they [media/journalists] faithfully executing the ‘agenda’ laid out by their evil masters, or are they simply incompetent journalists? Both suggestions are breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded.…is not the same as complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”I’m surprised it’s taking 3 tries to get that across.As long as Harper continues to run an opaque, micromanaged government, and continues to sow dissent among Canadians (census, LGR, ‘urban elites’)… I will be anti-Harper. If he ever gets around to implementing the openness and accountability that he’s promised every election… I would have to reconsider my opinion.

  • Liz J

    Tell me, what name did I call you?

  • Liz J

    Tell me, what name did I call you?

  • Liz J

    Tell me, what name did I call you?

  • Liz J

    What do you define as name calling?

  • Anonymous

    condescension and arrogance. ?

    Your reply also brings to mind a song that goes : “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when your perfect in every way”. Familiar with that one Kenn2?

    Close enough? or am I being hypersensitive?

  • Gabby in QC

    “What, are you NEW? I get called that alot (also shill, hack etc)… especially by my friend CD.”
    • I’m a frequent visitor here, but you’ll forgive me if I don’t hang on your every word or every discussion that involves you. You’re beginning to sound whiny.

    “Re our host Stephen – don’t be naive. He works at the Manning Centre.”
    • When did the Manning Centre merge with the Conservative Party?

    “…is not the same as …”
    • You’re right. The two statements are not THE SAME, they are EQUIVALENT.

    “I’m surprised it’s taking 3 tries to get that across.”
    • There’s that condescension rising to the fore again, suggesting my reading comprehension is not up to par. Yawn. I’ve heard it before. Like water off a duck’s back.

    “As long as Harper continues to run an opaque, micromanaged government, … I will be anti-Harper.”
    • And that’s what this whole thing has been about all along, your anti-Harper-itis.
    You’ll have to nurse that virus on your own.

    Giddy up!

  • Liz J

    “Hypersensitive”? I wouldn’t know, don’t care, get over yourself, that might be a place to start.

    It’s been my experience those who dish it out can’t take it themselves with the result the threads get hijacked by nonsense that has nothing to do with the subject .

    Cheerio Kenn2, enjoy your day.

  • batb

    Stephen! Sorry to be a nag … but we need another couple of issues to chew on! There’s lots happening out there, for instance, The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform …

  • batb

    Whoops! I should have left a link to an article on The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform …

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-centre-seeks-review-of-canadas-immigration-policy/article1729389/

  • Liz J

    What’s new in the zoo and elsewhere?

  • Anonymous

    Yes. Lots to discuss there.

    (The Centre’s myth page… hoo boy. They’re answering myths with myths. But you knew I’d say that.)

  • batb

    Stephen! Are you on holiday? ;-)

    Bon voyage!

  • batb

    OK, let’s deal with just MYTH #2:

    “With an aging population and lower fertility rates, Canada needs high levels of immigration to provide the workers and tax base required to support social services for retirees.

    “The facts:

    “While it is true Canadians are living longer and having fewer babies, research shows that immigration has almost no impact on offsetting the costs of an aging population. …”

    They’ve got that right. Our recent immigrants (what I call “new” immigrants as opposed to “old” immigrants who came to Canada to assimilate and make their, and all Canadians’, lives better) are costing us a mint, especially when they “go on” lawfare to kick our butts because they have no intention of becoming Canadians but intend to bring their country of origin’s battles and prejudices to Canada.

    These “new” immigrants aren’t helping us at all. They’re creating problems that are costing the average, hard-working Canadian a ton.

    NO THANKS.

  • Anonymous

    It’s a historical fact that every citizen, even new citizens from the next-to-last wave of immigration, think that they’re the last of the “good” ones and those “new” immigrants are no-goodniks.Can you find actual stats on that site to back up the centre’s assertions? I couldn’t. I know this: there aren’t sufficient data to conclude that the most recent wave of immigrants are or will be “worse” contributors than the last batch…because the newbies just haven’t been here long enough. Ultimately, to maintain economic growth, new people gotta come from somewhere. Wombs, or immigration. No other choice.(I really have no issues with reexamining our criteria, and even deciding that we can’t handle as many during a recession, but that Centre is just an extension of the Fraser Institute, and they have more than immigration in their sights)Ok my turnMYTH #4:Canada needs large numbers of immigrants because it will face massive shortages of skilled labour in the coming decades.The facts:There will be no such shortages if more Canadians acquire the needed skills, which can be accomplished if wages, government policies and other conditions encourage them to do so and the jobs are not filled by immigrants. With a few exceptions—such as the present and temporary shortage of medical workers—Canada has both the human resources and educational infrastructure to meet our skilled labour needs. What a load of crap. The right has NO intention of making any of the above happen. They won’t raise the minimum wage to something realistic, they won’t fund the universities and colleges any better, and they haven’t provided near enough retraining opportunities for those laid-off in the downturn, even counting the stimulus money and other recession bandaids.This is a derail in this thread. Maybe Mr Taylor will start a new topic so we can get properly worked up.

  • Anonymous

    It’s a historical fact that every citizen, even new citizens from the next-to-last wave of immigration, think that they’re the last of the “good” ones and those “new” immigrants are no-goodniks.Can you find actual stats on that site to back up the centre’s assertions? I couldn’t. I know this: there aren’t sufficient data to conclude that the most recent wave of immigrants are or will be “worse” contributors than the last batch…because the newbies just haven’t been here long enough. Ultimately, to maintain economic growth, new people gotta come from somewhere. Wombs, or immigration. No other choice.(I really have no issues with reexamining our criteria, and even deciding that we can’t handle as many during a recession, but that Centre is just an extension of the Fraser Institute, and they have more than immigration in their sights)Ok my turnMYTH #4:Canada needs large numbers of immigrants because it will face massive shortages of skilled labour in the coming decades.The facts:There will be no such shortages if more Canadians acquire the needed skills, which can be accomplished if wages, government policies and other conditions encourage them to do so and the jobs are not filled by immigrants. With a few exceptions—such as the present and temporary shortage of medical workers—Canada has both the human resources and educational infrastructure to meet our skilled labour needs. What a load of crap. The right has NO intention of making any of the above happen. They won’t raise the minimum wage to something realistic, they won’t fund the universities and colleges any better, and they haven’t provided near enough retraining opportunities for those laid-off in the downturn, even counting the stimulus money and other recession bandaids.This is a derail in this thread. Maybe Mr Taylor will start a new topic so we can get properly worked up.

  • batb

    ” … there aren’t sufficient data to conclude that the most recent wave of immigrants are or will be “worse” contributors than the last batch…because the newbies just haven’t been here long enough. ”

    When I talk about “new” I mean in the last 20 years or so. I don’t remember “old” waves of immigrants from, say, Italy, Portugal, or China, making plans to blow up downtown Toronto and the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, or to behead the prime minister. I’d say we have a pretty good idea of who the “no-goodniks” are — and I suspect that folks at the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform want to address some of these “new” problems posed by “new” immigrants who don’t exactly seem to have the safety, health, and welfare of Canadians uppermost on their agenda.

  • Anonymous

    That’s a pretty wide brush you paint with.

    (and still, no data)

  • batb

    “No data” is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    What data do you need? Check out the court records of these guys’ trials.

    Use your God-given faculties: sight, hearing, your brain. They should provide “data” enough.

  • Anonymous

    This scoundrel wants to know how a handful of nuts equates to painting all immigrants in the last 20 years as bad for Canada.

    (So you don’t like people who are “different”… ok, we get it. Not quite a sound basis for determining immigration policy, though)

  • batb

    Knock it off, Ken. Nowhere and at no time did I say I “don’t like folks who are different,” nor did I imply that “all immigrants in the last 20 years [are] bad for Canada.” I certainly did imply, however, that some immigrants in the last 20 years have harmed our national security and the only prudent thing for Canada to do, at this point, is to analyze our immigration policies and to try and screen more diligently those who are allowed to emigrate to Canada, based on their prior political activity and affiliations. If they are known to belong to, or are connected to, a terrorist group, Canada is under no obligation to allow either them or their family members into Canada.

    This view is neither intolerant nor bigoted, as you suggest. It is simply prudent.

  • batb

    Knock it off, Ken. Nowhere and at no time did I say I “don’t like folks who are different,” nor did I imply that “all immigrants in the last 20 years [are] bad for Canada.” I certainly did imply, however, that some immigrants in the last 20 years have harmed our national security and the only prudent thing for Canada to do, at this point, is to analyze our immigration policies and to try and screen more diligently those who are allowed to emigrate to Canada, based on their prior political activity and affiliations. If they are known to belong to, or are connected to, a terrorist group, Canada is under no obligation to allow either them or their family members into Canada.

    This view is neither intolerant nor bigoted, as you suggest. It is simply prudent.

  • Liz J

    For all who are concerned about this country or those who are yelling about the need for more immigrants there’s new book by Lowell Green to bring some reality to the subject of where we are and where we’re headed. It’s called: “Mayday, Mayday. Curb Immigration. Stop Multiculturalism Or It’s The End Of The Canada We Know.” Go to lowellgreen.com for info.

  • Anonymous

    Now that you’ve walked it back a bit, your view makes more sense.

    What’s your take on my assessment of Myth #4?

  • batb

    kenn2, sometimes you’re slow …

    My comment of 9 hours ago is my assessment of myth #4.

    However, scoundrel that you are, here’s some data courtesy of maz2 @ SDA and BLY:

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/10/03/15568906.html

    http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/10/03/lawrence-martin-admits-he-is-biased/#comment-91772

  • Anonymous

    My comment of 9 hours ago is my assessment of myth #4.

    … Ok. I must be really slow then. Nothing about that response seems to address myth #4.

    bluelikeyou… ack! what an echo-chamber.

  • Alhauff

    The Liberals are basking in Canada’s defeat in achieving a seat on the UN Security council. Makes me wonder if the Liberals are not for Canada, who are they for? They cetainly did everything they could to undermine us.
    In our family we keep domestic politics at home where they beong. Shame.