Senior Liberal compares Harper government policy to Nazi collaboration

Ron McKinnon is a former Liberal candidate and is the current Liberal President of the Port Moody–Westwood–Port Coquitlam Federal Liberal Association. He wrote this on his blog yesterday:

This week the Harper government revealed plans for dealing with refugee vessels, citing concerns of human smuggling and trafficking.

In this vein they want to work more closely with foreign governments to stop those boats at the source. But, since we’re talking about refugees who, by definition, are fleeing persecution, such sources are arguably the very governments they’re fleeing. This brave new policy is sordidly familiar, akin to collaborating with the Nazis to stop the flight of Jews.

Does Michael Ignatieff condone these remarks from this senior Liberal?

Comments

comments

  • wilson

    Would that be the same MI that said
    “You know you smell the whiff of sulfur coming off the guy (Harper) — we know how right wing these guys really are.”

    MI is all in for demonizing PMSH,
    so I would say yes, he condones, approves and encourages this kind of talk.

  • dmorris

    Does he not see the irony in his comment? It was a Liberal, WL MacKenzie-King,who turned the S.S. St.Louis away from Canada,and sent them back to France where most were sent to NAZI concentration camps.

    The Tamil situation hardly compares,though,as Sri Lanka is now accepting Tamils refugees back by the thousands,according to a recent column by Ezra Levant.

    DMorris

  • Liz J

    Pretty slimy and pathetic thing to say. This needs to be dealt with at the top, that would be Mr Ignatieff himself and immediately if not sooner. Since it was a Liberal PM who turned the Jews away from Canada to certain death is sordidly ironic.

    Guess Mr Ignatieff is studying up for his town hall open mic road show coming to a town near you this Fall and nursing his saddle sores from riding the bus all summer, he has no time to deal with such mundane chores, gotta put his all into convincing “the Canadians” to like him.

  • batb

    These Liberals are out of control. They’re in free fall, they’re acting like drunken sailors — no offense meant to sailors — on a voyage to nowhere.

    They’ve completely disregarded professional courtesies and standards in their open and flagrant contempt of our duly elected Prime Minister and, in doing so, have also shown contempt for Parliament and a sizable number of Canadians who voted for the CPC.

    Their promiscuous use of language, perfectly demonstrated by Mr. McKinnon’s comparing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the CPC to Nazis vis a vis the Tamil “refugees” entering Canada, is utterly indiscreet and unacceptable. It is despicable.

    McKinnon should apologize to Mr. Harper, as should the “leader” of the LPC. Unfortunately, being the leader of the LPC usually precludes doing the right — as in correct — thing.

  • batb

    These Liberals are out of control. They’re in free fall, they’re acting like drunken sailors — no offense meant to sailors — on a voyage to nowhere.

    They’ve completely disregarded professional courtesies and standards in their open and flagrant contempt of our duly elected Prime Minister and, in doing so, have also shown contempt for Parliament and a sizable number of Canadians who voted for the CPC.

    Their promiscuous use of language, perfectly demonstrated by Mr. McKinnon’s comparing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the CPC to Nazis vis a vis the Tamil “refugees” entering Canada, is utterly indiscreet and unacceptable. It is despicable.

    McKinnon should apologize to Mr. Harper, as should the “leader” of the LPC. Unfortunately, being the leader of the LPC usually precludes doing the right — as in correct — thing.

  • Anonymous

    Their promiscuous use of language, perfectly demonstrated by Mr. McKinnon’s comparing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the CPC to Nazis vis a vis the Tamil “refugees” entering Canada, is utterly indiscreet and unacceptable. It is despicable.

    Um, the comparison was to the act of “collaborating with the Nazis”, not comparing the CPC to Nazis, per se.

    Kind of ironic criticizing statements when your comprehension is sub-par. Nice use of ‘discreet’, though…

    … no offense meant to sailors

    Thanks. None taken.

    (Do I like any inappropriate use of the term ‘Nazi’ in political discourse? No I don’t. So I’m on your side for that… It’s just lame. It’s also the debating equivalent of an offside. See Godwin’s Law)

  • Anonymous

    Their promiscuous use of language, perfectly demonstrated by Mr. McKinnon’s comparing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the CPC to Nazis vis a vis the Tamil “refugees” entering Canada, is utterly indiscreet and unacceptable. It is despicable.

    Um, the comparison was to the act of “collaborating with the Nazis”, not comparing the CPC to Nazis, per se.

    Kind of ironic criticizing statements when your comprehension is sub-par. Nice use of ‘discreet’, though…

    … no offense meant to sailors

    Thanks. None taken.

    (Do I like any inappropriate use of the term ‘Nazi’ in political discourse? No I don’t. So I’m on your side for that… It’s just lame. It’s also the debating equivalent of an offside. See Godwin’s Law)

  • batb

    So, Mr. McKinnon should apologize, right? And, how about his fearless leader?

    I know about Godwin’s Law. McKinnon lost the argument the minute he uttered the N word. So, he should apologize, right?

  • batb

    So, Mr. McKinnon should apologize, right? And, how about his fearless leader?

    I know about Godwin’s Law. McKinnon lost the argument the minute he uttered the N word. So, he should apologize, right?

  • batb

    So, Mr. McKinnon should apologize, right? And, how about his fearless leader?

    I know about Godwin’s Law. McKinnon lost the argument the minute he uttered the N word. So, he should apologize, right?

  • Anonymous

    In a better world… yeah McKinnon shouldn’t have made that comparison, so ideally he should apologize, and Ignatieff should maybe dissociate himself from and express disapproval of that comment.

    And maybe Harper could also resist kicking the beehive so often by not sounding off on and exploiting every wedge issue he comes across. Like refugees.

    Paul Wells has a great summary (IMHO) of how polarized, nasty and base the political dialogue has become. I know how you’ll probably dismiss it, but it’s pretty hard to deny the overall picture.

  • Anonymous

    In a better world… yeah McKinnon shouldn’t have made that comparison, so ideally he should apologize, and Ignatieff should maybe dissociate himself from and express disapproval of that comment.

    And maybe Harper could also resist kicking the beehive so often by not sounding off on and exploiting every wedge issue he comes across. Like refugees.

    Paul Wells has a great summary (IMHO) of how polarized, nasty and base the political dialogue has become. I know how you’ll probably dismiss it, but it’s pretty hard to deny the overall picture.

  • batb

    “Like refugees.”

    Uh huh. What “refugees” are you referring to? The illegal ones who’ve paid up to $50,000 each to Tamil Tiger traffickers and who’ve jumped the queue?

    Why the hell should Canadians be paying the housing, medical, educational bills for almost 500 “refugees” who’ve illegally entered our country — and it seems there’s more on the way. We have been accepting them because of an unconscionable law brought in by the Liberal$’ appointee to the SCA, Bertha Wilson. Hard-working Canadian families are having enough trouble meeting their own housing, medical, and educational costs without having to pay these costs for faux refugees, many of whom are known to be Tamil Tigers.

    Who’s making all the money out of this boatload of Tamils? Why, the Tamil extremists who took the “refugees'” freight fee and dumped them on Canadian soil.

    Paul Wells doesn’t like Prime Minister Stephen Harper and never has. I don’t particularly like Paul Wells and find that he’s a l/Liberal toady and has been for years. McLean’s? ‘Don’t like it so much, either. Comparing Prime Minister Harper to Glenn Beck? Ha! That should disqualify Wells from being taken seriously. ‘Nice photo, both guys in glasses. Yeah. That clinches it. They’re twins. ‘Separated at birth.

    “That crowd in front of Beck was big,” (Wells) … um, that crowd was humongous, Paul, though I guess “big” is as far as your expansive Canadian MSM soul could stretch. ‘Wake up, smell the coffee … Wells again: “And opinions about Beck, like opinions about so much else in public life today, are written in acid and invective.” Hmmm … ‘wonder where it all started? ‘Wonder how come so many people are feeling riled and disenfranchised? ‘Anything to do with being left out of the conversation for so long, something for which Mr. Wells and many of his media comrades will have to take some responsibility. And, oh for Gawd’s sake, leave Pat Buchanan and George Dubya out of the conversation.

    Then Wells descends to “right-wing whack job,” describing Australia’s Tony Abbott. I don’t think I’ve ever seen in print, or talked of on radio or TV, a “left-wing whack job,” of which, BTW, there are many. So, Wells ups the rhetoric ante in an article in which he’s complaining about a “polarized debate.” Look at yourself in the mirror, Paolo.

    Wells: “The Liberals, meanwhile, still hope to straddle a centre that’s increasingly hard even to find.” Where’s the discussion about why this is so – and let’s leave the U.S. and Australia out of it. After over 30 years of Liberal hegemony, “a culture of corruption” (Gomery) — which was abhorrent to many of us hard-working Canadians who were being taxed to the max while the Liberal$ were socially engineering us into a Nanny State — who is it that has polarized the debate? I’ll answer my own question: the Liberal$ (poor babies that “they have to fight the Bloc and the NDP for the rest” — how stunningly articulate) and their toadies, cheerleaders, and sycophants in the media.

    The ice flow for c/Conservatives in the public square seems to be getting smaller by the week, and Paul Wells is a big part of the problem. If we really want genuine debate up here in the “true North, strong and free,” we’d better get SunTV pronto. I’m sick and tired of the MSM pile-on of the CPC and Prime Minister Harper. Paul Wells is part of the pile-on. The only reason I know that PMSH and his party are doing a more than adequate job of governing our country (they’re not perfect) is because I go to the blogs and the PM’s own Web site. It’s scandalous how biased against the CPC our media is; I thought they were supposed to be for “openness,” “tolerance,” and “diversity.” They’re only open, tolerant, and accepting of diversity if it’s their definition of these terms. Put a left spin on them, and that’s what you get, a steady diet of it, from our media.

    “Elites are the enemy.” Uh huh. And Mr. Wells is part of the elite in this country, otherwise known as the chattering classes, who seem to have taken over Canada, leaving out the voice of the “average” Canadian who, it seems, is beneath their contempt. The “elites” in this country are not the Conrad Blacks (well, I guess he doesn’t count, anyway, because Chretien, fine, non-polarizing PM that he was, wouldn’t allow Black a knighthood if he wanted to keep his Canadian citizenship) but the members of our judicial, educational, political, and journalistic brotherhoods, who spin the facts ever leftward in this Dystopian and Deranged Dominion (h/t Mark Steyn).

    So, you’re right (whoops!) … correct … kenn2, about my feelings for Paul Wells. ‘You want to talk about “polarized, nasty and base …political dialogue”? Just pick up a McLean’s magazine or watch 24 hours of the CBC, or CTV for that matter. I don’t dismiss Paul Wells’ opinion; it’s out there. I just vehemently disagree with his take on things and consider him and his media cohorts as a “big” (maybe humongous) reason why political debate in this country is so polarized.

    The media is not an innocent bystander – and nor is Mr. Wells.

  • batb

    “Like refugees.”

    Uh huh. What “refugees” are you referring to? The illegal ones who’ve paid up to $50,000 each to Tamil Tiger traffickers and who’ve jumped the queue?

    Why the hell should Canadians be paying the housing, medical, educational bills for almost 500 “refugees” who’ve illegally entered our country — and it seems there’s more on the way. We have been accepting them because of an unconscionable law brought in by the Liberal$’ appointee to the SCA, Bertha Wilson. Hard-working Canadian families are having enough trouble meeting their own housing, medical, and educational costs without having to pay these costs for faux refugees, many of whom are known to be Tamil Tigers.

    Who’s making all the money out of this boatload of Tamils? Why, the Tamil extremists who took the “refugees'” freight fee and dumped them on Canadian soil.

    Paul Wells doesn’t like Prime Minister Stephen Harper and never has. I don’t particularly like Paul Wells and find that he’s a l/Liberal toady and has been for years. McLean’s? ‘Don’t like it so much, either. Comparing Prime Minister Harper to Glenn Beck? Ha! That should disqualify Wells from being taken seriously. ‘Nice photo, both guys in glasses. Yeah. That clinches it. They’re twins. ‘Separated at birth.

    “That crowd in front of Beck was big,” (Wells) … um, that crowd was humongous, Paul, though I guess “big” is as far as your expansive Canadian MSM soul could stretch. ‘Wake up, smell the coffee … Wells again: “And opinions about Beck, like opinions about so much else in public life today, are written in acid and invective.” Hmmm … ‘wonder where it all started? ‘Wonder how come so many people are feeling riled and disenfranchised? ‘Anything to do with being left out of the conversation for so long, something for which Mr. Wells and many of his media comrades will have to take some responsibility. And, oh for Gawd’s sake, leave Pat Buchanan and George Dubya out of the conversation.

    Then Wells descends to “right-wing whack job,” describing Australia’s Tony Abbott. I don’t think I’ve ever seen in print, or talked of on radio or TV, a “left-wing whack job,” of which, BTW, there are many. So, Wells ups the rhetoric ante in an article in which he’s complaining about a “polarized debate.” Look at yourself in the mirror, Paolo.

    Wells: “The Liberals, meanwhile, still hope to straddle a centre that’s increasingly hard even to find.” Where’s the discussion about why this is so – and let’s leave the U.S. and Australia out of it. After over 30 years of Liberal hegemony, “a culture of corruption” (Gomery) — which was abhorrent to many of us hard-working Canadians who were being taxed to the max while the Liberal$ were socially engineering us into a Nanny State — who is it that has polarized the debate? I’ll answer my own question: the Liberal$ (poor babies that “they have to fight the Bloc and the NDP for the rest” — how stunningly articulate) and their toadies, cheerleaders, and sycophants in the media.

    The ice flow for c/Conservatives in the public square seems to be getting smaller by the week, and Paul Wells is a big part of the problem. If we really want genuine debate up here in the “true North, strong and free,” we’d better get SunTV pronto. I’m sick and tired of the MSM pile-on of the CPC and Prime Minister Harper. Paul Wells is part of the pile-on. The only reason I know that PMSH and his party are doing a more than adequate job of governing our country (they’re not perfect) is because I go to the blogs and the PM’s own Web site. It’s scandalous how biased against the CPC our media is; I thought they were supposed to be for “openness,” “tolerance,” and “diversity.” They’re only open, tolerant, and accepting of diversity if it’s their definition of these terms. Put a left spin on them, and that’s what you get, a steady diet of it, from our media.

    “Elites are the enemy.” Uh huh. And Mr. Wells is part of the elite in this country, otherwise known as the chattering classes, who seem to have taken over Canada, leaving out the voice of the “average” Canadian who, it seems, is beneath their contempt. The “elites” in this country are not the Conrad Blacks (well, I guess he doesn’t count, anyway, because Chretien, fine, non-polarizing PM that he was, wouldn’t allow Black a knighthood if he wanted to keep his Canadian citizenship) but the members of our judicial, educational, political, and journalistic brotherhoods, who spin the facts ever leftward in this Dystopian and Deranged Dominion (h/t Mark Steyn).

    So, you’re right (whoops!) … correct … kenn2, about my feelings for Paul Wells. ‘You want to talk about “polarized, nasty and base …political dialogue”? Just pick up a McLean’s magazine or watch 24 hours of the CBC, or CTV for that matter. I don’t dismiss Paul Wells’ opinion; it’s out there. I just vehemently disagree with his take on things and consider him and his media cohorts as a “big” (maybe humongous) reason why political debate in this country is so polarized.

    The media is not an innocent bystander – and nor is Mr. Wells.

  • batb

    “Like refugees.”

    Uh huh. What “refugees” are you referring to? The illegal ones who’ve paid up to $50,000 each to Tamil Tiger traffickers and who’ve jumped the queue?

    Why the hell should Canadians be paying the housing, medical, educational bills for almost 500 “refugees” who’ve illegally entered our country — and it seems there’s more on the way. We have been accepting them because of an unconscionable law brought in by the Liberal$’ appointee to the SCA, Bertha Wilson. Hard-working Canadian families are having enough trouble meeting their own housing, medical, and educational costs without having to pay these costs for faux refugees, many of whom are known to be Tamil Tigers.

    Who’s making all the money out of this boatload of Tamils? Why, the Tamil extremists who took the “refugees'” freight fee and dumped them on Canadian soil.

    Paul Wells doesn’t like Prime Minister Stephen Harper and never has. I don’t particularly like Paul Wells and find that he’s a l/Liberal toady and has been for years. McLean’s? ‘Don’t like it so much, either. Comparing Prime Minister Harper to Glenn Beck? Ha! That should disqualify Wells from being taken seriously. ‘Nice photo, both guys in glasses. Yeah. That clinches it. They’re twins. ‘Separated at birth.

    “That crowd in front of Beck was big,” (Wells) … um, that crowd was humongous, Paul, though I guess “big” is as far as your expansive Canadian MSM soul could stretch. ‘Wake up, smell the coffee … Wells again: “And opinions about Beck, like opinions about so much else in public life today, are written in acid and invective.” Hmmm … ‘wonder where it all started? ‘Wonder how come so many people are feeling riled and disenfranchised? ‘Anything to do with being left out of the conversation for so long, something for which Mr. Wells and many of his media comrades will have to take some responsibility. And, oh for Gawd’s sake, leave Pat Buchanan and George Dubya out of the conversation.

    Then Wells descends to “right-wing whack job,” describing Australia’s Tony Abbott. I don’t think I’ve ever seen in print, or talked of on radio or TV, a “left-wing whack job,” of which, BTW, there are many. So, Wells ups the rhetoric ante in an article in which he’s complaining about a “polarized debate.” Look at yourself in the mirror, Paolo.

    Wells: “The Liberals, meanwhile, still hope to straddle a centre that’s increasingly hard even to find.” Where’s the discussion about why this is so – and let’s leave the U.S. and Australia out of it. After over 30 years of Liberal hegemony, “a culture of corruption” (Gomery) — which was abhorrent to many of us hard-working Canadians who were being taxed to the max while the Liberal$ were socially engineering us into a Nanny State — who is it that has polarized the debate? I’ll answer my own question: the Liberal$ (poor babies that “they have to fight the Bloc and the NDP for the rest” — how stunningly articulate) and their toadies, cheerleaders, and sycophants in the media.

    The ice flow for c/Conservatives in the public square seems to be getting smaller by the week, and Paul Wells is a big part of the problem. If we really want genuine debate up here in the “true North, strong and free,” we’d better get SunTV pronto. I’m sick and tired of the MSM pile-on of the CPC and Prime Minister Harper. Paul Wells is part of the pile-on. The only reason I know that PMSH and his party are doing a more than adequate job of governing our country (they’re not perfect) is because I go to the blogs and the PM’s own Web site. It’s scandalous how biased against the CPC our media is; I thought they were supposed to be for “openness,” “tolerance,” and “diversity.” They’re only open, tolerant, and accepting of diversity if it’s their definition of these terms. Put a left spin on them, and that’s what you get, a steady diet of it, from our media.

    “Elites are the enemy.” Uh huh. And Mr. Wells is part of the elite in this country, otherwise known as the chattering classes, who seem to have taken over Canada, leaving out the voice of the “average” Canadian who, it seems, is beneath their contempt. The “elites” in this country are not the Conrad Blacks (well, I guess he doesn’t count, anyway, because Chretien, fine, non-polarizing PM that he was, wouldn’t allow Black a knighthood if he wanted to keep his Canadian citizenship) but the members of our judicial, educational, political, and journalistic brotherhoods, who spin the facts ever leftward in this Dystopian and Deranged Dominion (h/t Mark Steyn).

    So, you’re right (whoops!) … correct … kenn2, about my feelings for Paul Wells. ‘You want to talk about “polarized, nasty and base …political dialogue”? Just pick up a McLean’s magazine or watch 24 hours of the CBC, or CTV for that matter. I don’t dismiss Paul Wells’ opinion; it’s out there. I just vehemently disagree with his take on things and consider him and his media cohorts as a “big” (maybe humongous) reason why political debate in this country is so polarized.

    The media is not an innocent bystander – and nor is Mr. Wells.

  • Anonymous

    So, yeah, about what I expected, but with some strong arguments. It’s clear why you think what you think. So… a bit better than I expected, maybe.

    Two things

    1) you, and maybe most other multi-generation Canadians don’t have clue #1 about life in the rest of the world, including what creates refugees and drives them to abandon their homes and lives. You apparently can’t imagine a situation so horrible that you’d sell everything in your family’s possession, or make future commitments , to crooks and pirates even, to spend months on a piece of shit freighter, in order to maybe save your family’s lives. You expect them to swim here, maybe?

    2) Instead of taking a balanced, reasoned approach to the refugee issue, Harper & Co choose to play to ignorance by stroking these fears, misconceptions and resentments. Cos of course, alot of their base (… as demonstrated by yourself) hold these misconceptions as truth.

    Exact same story for the issue of immigration.

    btw, didja notice in the Wells piece that in all western countries mentioned that’s currently taking a right turn, the right holds the opinion that the media is left-biased? The solution isn’t to introduce a new right-biased outlet, it’s to demand and support unbiased journalism.

    For example, in the last several years the Nat’l Post, or Global TV’s news – both right-leaning in their news – hasn’t apparently satisfied you, and you have no love for a centrist paper like the Globe & Mail. So how will SUN TV make the world better? Have you actually ever read a SUN newspaper? Cos that’s where their head’s at. Can’t wait for dat TV equivalent of the Sunshine Girl…

    This whole “media is biased” thing is just a big fat set of blinkers, donned when the news doesn’t please you. There are tons of good journalists in every major media outlet in Canada. Drop the blinkers and seek out the individual voices that do engage in good journalism.

    The only reason I know that PMSH and his party are doing a more than adequate job of governing our country (they’re not perfect) is because I go to the blogs and the PM’s own Web site.

    You’re in effect saying that you prefer propaganda, or a mirror, to journalism.

  • Anonymous

    So, yeah, about what I expected, but with some strong arguments. It’s clear why you think what you think. So… a bit better than I expected, maybe.

    Two things

    1) you, and maybe most other multi-generation Canadians don’t have clue #1 about life in the rest of the world, including what creates refugees and drives them to abandon their homes and lives. You apparently can’t imagine a situation so horrible that you’d sell everything in your family’s possession, or make future commitments , to crooks and pirates even, to spend months on a piece of shit freighter, in order to maybe save your family’s lives. You expect them to swim here, maybe?

    2) Instead of taking a balanced, reasoned approach to the refugee issue, Harper & Co choose to play to ignorance by stroking these fears, misconceptions and resentments. Cos of course, alot of their base (… as demonstrated by yourself) hold these misconceptions as truth.

    Exact same story for the issue of immigration.

    btw, didja notice in the Wells piece that in all western countries mentioned that’s currently taking a right turn, the right holds the opinion that the media is left-biased? The solution isn’t to introduce a new right-biased outlet, it’s to demand and support unbiased journalism.

    For example, in the last several years the Nat’l Post, or Global TV’s news – both right-leaning in their news – hasn’t apparently satisfied you, and you have no love for a centrist paper like the Globe & Mail. So how will SUN TV make the world better? Have you actually ever read a SUN newspaper? Cos that’s where their head’s at. Can’t wait for dat TV equivalent of the Sunshine Girl…

    This whole “media is biased” thing is just a big fat set of blinkers, donned when the news doesn’t please you. There are tons of good journalists in every major media outlet in Canada. Drop the blinkers and seek out the individual voices that do engage in good journalism.

    The only reason I know that PMSH and his party are doing a more than adequate job of governing our country (they’re not perfect) is because I go to the blogs and the PM’s own Web site.

    You’re in effect saying that you prefer propaganda, or a mirror, to journalism.

  • Anonymous

    Forgot to respond to this:
    Wells: “The Liberals, meanwhile, still hope to straddle a centre that’s increasingly hard even to find.” Where’s the discussion about why this is so – and let’s leave the U.S. and Australia out of it.

    When the debate is so polarized, the center is a wasteland. The perfect analogy here is WW I -style trench warfare. Both sides are dug in, there’s no communication, only attacks, and any move by either side to the center only results in casualties. So the center, the natural, sensible governing position, is currently unattainable.

    I suspect that Harper would love to embrace the center in order get that elusive majority, but he knows that the extreme right provided the extra kick to put the CPC into power, and he can’t risk losing them by any move to the center.

  • Anonymous

    Forgot to respond to this:
    Wells: “The Liberals, meanwhile, still hope to straddle a centre that’s increasingly hard even to find.” Where’s the discussion about why this is so – and let’s leave the U.S. and Australia out of it.

    When the debate is so polarized, the center is a wasteland. The perfect analogy here is WW I -style trench warfare. Both sides are dug in, there’s no communication, only attacks, and any move by either side to the center only results in casualties. So the center, the natural, sensible governing position, is currently unattainable.

    I suspect that Harper would love to embrace the center in order get that elusive majority, but he knows that the extreme right provided the extra kick to put the CPC into power, and he can’t risk losing them by any move to the center.

  • Anonymous

    Forgot to respond to this:
    Wells: “The Liberals, meanwhile, still hope to straddle a centre that’s increasingly hard even to find.” Where’s the discussion about why this is so – and let’s leave the U.S. and Australia out of it.

    When the debate is so polarized, the center is a wasteland. The perfect analogy here is WW I -style trench warfare. Both sides are dug in, there’s no communication, only attacks, and any move by either side to the center only results in casualties. So the center, the natural, sensible governing position, is currently unattainable.

    I suspect that Harper would love to embrace the center in order get that elusive majority, but he knows that the extreme right provided the extra kick to put the CPC into power, and he can’t risk losing them by any move to the center.

  • batb

    kenn2: ” … a bit better than I expected …” What does that translate to, an A? or a B?

    Your argument about poor refugees wanting to flee a despicable situation — and I can’t understand that? Piffle — would be a good one, if it weren’t for the circumstances of this particular group of refugees. Canada’s taken in more than its fair share of refugees over the years, and that’s well and good and as it should be. So much for my lack of compassion compared, I suppose, to your big, wide-open heart.

    These” refugees” were brought here by Tamil Tigers a) who are part of a terrorist organization which has tried to engage our government in interference with the Sri Lankan government and b) who made a lot of money off the transporting of these refugees — you could say a killing as some of them died en route. I don’t imagine they give refunds for passengers who don’t make it. Canada, mostly in Toronto, already has the biggest population of Tamils in the world, except for Sri Lanka, so I’m not clear we need more, especially as a sizable number of them illegally disrupted downtown Toronto for days on end last summer.

    The U.N. has made it clear that Sri Lanka is now a safe place for Tamils, so why does Canada need to take more of them? Australia and Thailand refused to take this boatload of illegal refugees and we were forced to because of Bertha Wilson’s astonishingly permissive law granting any person, who for any reason sets foot on Canadian soil, all the Charter rights and freedoms of citizens. That puts an incredibly heavy financial burden on hard-working Canadians and makes us an easy target for “refugee” abuse — which this boatload of freeloaders amply demonstrates.

    I’m unaware of PM Harper and his government “stroking [sic] these fears, misconceptions and resentments.” Any thinking Canadian who has to pay their own way was connecting the dots and asking, “Why the heck should almost 500 illegal refugees, many of them Tamil Tigers — aren’t they a terrorist group? — be housed, fed, and given medical attention on my dime, when I’m having enough trouble as it is making ends meet for me and my family?”

    The CPC didn’t have to stoke “fears, misconceptions and resentments” about this boatload of freeloaders (with the Tamil Tigers making million$ from the transaction). It’s clear to any thinking person that these rogue refugees should not be landing on Canadian soil to take utter advantage of our very permissive laws. And, what does this say to those refugees who are fleeing equally difficult situations but happen to have gone through legal channels to come to Canada and are still waiting in line?

    kenn2: “The solution [to left-biased journalism] isn’t to introduce a new right-biased outlet, it’s to demand and support unbiased journalism.”

    Oh yeah? LOL! To whom do I make my demands?

    Over the last 30 years, I’ve written to the Ontario Press Council, many CBC ombudsmen, and countless newspaper editors, demanding not “unbiased journalism,” as there’s no such thing, but BALANCED journalism: If you bring on a spokesperson from the left you should bring on a spokesperson from the right, seeing as Canadians are both on the left and right of the political spectrum. For 30 years I’ve been waiting for balanced journalism in Canada — from the CBC, in particular, seeing as taxpayers shell out over $one-billion yearly to the Mother Corps — and I’m still waiting. (How do you know that going to the blogs to get my information translates into propaganda? You don’t know what blogs I read, so how can you accuse me of looking only in a mirror or swallowing “propaganda”? I often go to the Probe and Fail, the TorStar, the National Post, McLean’s, the NYT to see what they have to say — but I don’t usually get a full picture of what’s going on.)

    I’m suggesting that the Liberal$ and their media shills have made their beds and now they have to lie in them. Why do you think blogs have taken off and that the CBC, for instance, gets only about 5% of viewer market share, and that print media outlets are being read by fewer and fewer North Americans? In part it’s because way too many of us have felt disenfranchised and unfairly portrayed by an elitist media whose members seem to exist in a hermetically sealed bubble where they talk and listen to only to one another.

    There is life beyond the leftisphere.

    And the sooner the media elites figure this out and open their media loops to those on the right side of the political spectrum, the more viewers and readers they’ll get back, unless it’s too late, which I rather suspect it is. In the meantime, because it will probably Frosty Friday before the media elites wake up, SunTV needs a kick at the can. It will sink or swim based on who is willing to watch it. Given the number of disillusioned Canadians who are waiting for a less lopsided approach to public affairs and political issues, SunTV may do very well — much better than the present media mob thinks, which will be their worst nightmare.

    Frankly, I can’t wait.

  • batb

    I didn’t forget. I said, “I’m suggesting that the Liberal$ and their media shills have made their beds and now they have to lie in them,” and I should have added, so do the rest of us — the beds I’m referring to are the polarized debate (what debate? I’m still waiting) and the centre that’s a wasteland.

    Over 30 years of Liberal hegemony and a culture of corruption — I repeat, A CULTURE OF CORRUPTION — have resulted in the polarization of our society because anyone who doesn’t agree with them has been marginalized, called “red necks,” “yahoos,” and — what was Paul Well’s lovely phrase again? — “right-wing whack jobs”? ‘Great way to engender debate: insult and call your ideological opponents derogatory names. ‘See what I mean? It’s Prime Minister Harper’s fault that there’s polarization in our country?

    The Liberal$, if you recall, didn’t allow debate. You either agreed with them or @$$#@! kapow @$$#@!, you know? The Shawinigan Strangl… er … I mean the Shawinigan “hand”shake? ? With the Liberal$ and their shills in the media, there never was “a centre.” You were either on the left, where they were (abortion on demand, state-funded feminism via SOW and NAC, state-funded daycare, etc.) or you were out to lunch, and they made that very obvious.

    In fact, if you weren’t in their corner — that would be the left one — you were out of the media loop altogether. Barbara Frum (RIP) was better than most. She had a knack of having folks from the other side of the political spectrum on her show and she wasn’t usually condescending to them, either. I actually cried when she died. She was a class act. But since her day, most commentators on the right — and especially those who are articulate and good at connecting dots and following the money — have been routinely shunned and not invited into the debate you’re talking about. What kind of debate is THAT?

    And, now we’ve got the chattering classes really up in arms that SunTV may be opening an actual debate. The irony is incredibly rich seeing as it’s they who, years ago, closed down any debate in the first place. Peggy Atwood’s diatribe against PM Harper, Kory Teneycke, and Quebecor Media and her signing the American-sponsored Avaaz petition shows just how eager the left is to foster debate and end the “polarization” you’re talking about.

    I don’t feel like talking about Australia or the U.S. I’m talking about Canada.

    Now, how about your responding to my other talking points, especially the role the Liberal$ and the Canadian media have played in creating polarization and a centre wasteland in Canada over the last 30 years? They’re complicit in this state of affairs. (And, retributive justice: the Liberal$ are in a political wasteland of their own making and the media is scrambling to sell papers and get enough viewers to stay afloat. These are Stephen Harper’s fault, too? Or George Dubya’s?)

  • Anonymous

    How will SUN TV succeed where the Nat’l Post and Global – other right-leaning news outlets – have failed? You haven’t explained that.

    And Macleans, TorStar, CTV, etc – these are not ideological organizations, these are for-profit enterprises. Do you not think that if there was a clamour for more right-leaning news, they’d go there?

  • Anonymous

    How will SUN TV succeed where the Nat’l Post and Global – other right-leaning news outlets – have failed? You haven’t explained that.

    And Macleans, TorStar, CTV, etc – these are not ideological organizations, these are for-profit enterprises. Do you not think that if there was a clamour for more right-leaning news, they’d go there?

  • Anonymous

    Now, how about your responding to my other talking points, especially the role the Liberal$ and the Canadian media have played in creating polarization and a centre wasteland in Canada over the last 30 years? They’re complicit in this state of affairs. The Liberals have reaped what they’ve sewn… no question. And as they imploded during the Chretien/Martin feud, the media had a merry pile-on. Did you miss that?I can blame the media for often failing to put issues above conflicts or spats, but not for bias or conspiracy against the CPC. Harper, like most current right-wingers, knows that portraying the media as biased and giving them the cold shoulder gives him more control with his “message” and plays to the “anti-elitist” sentiment of a large part of the CPC base.

  • batb

    Yes, the Liberal$ have reaped what they have sewn, and it’s good to see that admission from you. Why can’t the media recognize this? Why is everything Prime Minister Harper does so “sinister” and indicative of “a secret agenda”? If I can see what he’s doing, having no special status of any kind, then how “secret” can the CPC agenda be? How much energy is the CPC putting into “hiding” their plans and policies? If you listen to the media, you’d think plenty when, in fact, they’re not hiding very much. It’s the media that’s hiding their agenda!

    I’ve never used the word “conspiracy” so please stop using it when referring to my comments.

    As for this statement: “Harper … knows that portraying the media as biased [they are, so that’s not a stretch] and giving them the cold shoulder gives him more control with his ‘message’ and plays to the ‘anti-elitist’ sentiment of a large part of the CPC base.” He’s smart; he’s a good strategist; he’s not doing anything other politicians wouldn’t do or haven’t done. But, for some reason it’s a federal offense for him to be smart, whereas if he was a Liberal PM, it’d just be business as usual.

  • batb

    Yes, the Liberal$ have reaped what they have sewn, and it’s good to see that admission from you. Why can’t the media recognize this? Why is everything Prime Minister Harper does so “sinister” and indicative of “a secret agenda”? If I can see what he’s doing, having no special status of any kind, then how “secret” can the CPC agenda be? How much energy is the CPC putting into “hiding” their plans and policies? If you listen to the media, you’d think plenty when, in fact, they’re not hiding very much. It’s the media that’s hiding their agenda!

    I’ve never used the word “conspiracy” so please stop using it when referring to my comments.

    As for this statement: “Harper … knows that portraying the media as biased [they are, so that’s not a stretch] and giving them the cold shoulder gives him more control with his ‘message’ and plays to the ‘anti-elitist’ sentiment of a large part of the CPC base.” He’s smart; he’s a good strategist; he’s not doing anything other politicians wouldn’t do or haven’t done. But, for some reason it’s a federal offense for him to be smart, whereas if he was a Liberal PM, it’d just be business as usual.

  • Anonymous

    Like, two comments ago you’re telling us the Liberals & media are responsible for the current polarization; I point out one way in which Harper has helped sustain the divide, through his contempt for media…. and you reply “he’s smart”.

    On this we agree – he’s smart enough to know that by keeping the tone nasty and petty, and the firewall up, he may continue to alienate the center, but hang onto enough of the fringe supporters to squeak through again next election. Good for the CPC, sucks for Canada though.