Month: October 2009

You know, if you keep using that word, it won’t scare Canadians anymore

The Globe and Mail’s Jane Taber writes about the latest poll showing the Conservatives climbing in the polls. Here are just the first five paragraphs. What’s the story here?

Stephen Harper, the piano man and economic manager, is making Canadians so comfortable they want to see him win a majority government, according to a new national public opinion poll.

The EKOS Research survey released to the CBC shows that the Conservatives’ substantial lead over Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals is solidifying – a lead that now has the Tories knocking on the door of a majority government.

According to EKOS, the Tories now enjoy 40.7 per cent support compared to 25.5 per cent for the Liberals, 14.3 per cent for the NDP, 10.5 per cent for the Green Party and 9.1 per cent for the Bloc.

Two polls last week showed the same upward movement for the Conservatives, edging them into majority territory.

But EKOS has gone farther by plugging their numbers into a seat projection model that gives the Harper Conservatives 167 seats, a clear majority. They now have 143 seats.

(emphasis mine)

Making the same point over and over again?

Jane Taber is spelling it out her downtown Globe readers who perhaps have not yet discerned the gravity of recent news.

The Tories are on the verge of M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y.

Call and answer

I like Warren Kinsella. One of the reasons I like him is because he went for my open question, brought in the other side to weigh in, and now this allows us to fill in the blanks too. Oh, and he introduced me to Bob Rae, the next leader of the Liberal party!

Tweet the first:

Tweet the second:

Other potential tweets:

“Senate reform: can’t wait to pass legislation that has popular support by folks that have a democratic mandate from Canadians! The scotch budget, however, will remain.”

“Respect for the Alberta: Liberal-free since 2006. WK may return but has to wear black hat in the parade”

“When the ‘decade of darkness’ for the military re: Liberal investment is so far in the past, kids file it along with ‘moon landing’ and ‘Michael Jackson’ as crazy #$@* that happened that only our history books can really tell us about”

“When the Liberal party stops offering us out-of-touch humanities professors to feast upon, and tosses us a street-brawler like Jean Chretien or (oh please) Ruby Dhalla”

“When ‘Unity Crisis’ is mistaken as the name for an 80s revival band that covers Starship, rather than our recurring Liberal ballot headache”

What other things are you hopeful for in the future?

Anonymous sources say…

The Toronto Star’s Susan Delacourt wrote an article a couple of days ago quoting an anonymous source that told her that a “trio” of Liberals were in high level talks with Conservatives to cross the floor over to the government benches.

OTTAWA–A Conservative government official said Monday there have been discussions with three Liberal MPs interested in crossing the floor to the Tory side over the past month.

Liberals immediately dismissed the talk as Conservative “mischief” and said it is the government that is on a raiding mission.

Then it all started to smell a bit funny and Ms. Delacourt published the following on her own blog:

Q. Is it possible that the Conservative source made up this story to make “mischief,” as Liberals allege?

A: Yes it is. But our usual practice is to “out” the source if we find out it was a deliberate lie, so stay tuned. Seasoned political people know that you only get to lie once to a reporter.

and then the next day we get this under Delacourt’s print by-line:

OTTAWA–The Prime Minister’s Office sought Tuesday to distance itself from reports coming from Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s office about possible defections of Liberal MPs to the Conservatives.

Dimitri Soudas, a PMO spokesperson, said there was no truth to claims made to the Star by Kenney’s communications director, Alykhan Velshi, about three Liberal MPs interested in crossing the floor to the Conservatives.

…

Nor could Soudas explain why he was “outing” Velshi on Tuesday afternoon as the source of the tip to the Star. Soudas went on to explain that only the PMO knows certain information and Velshi wouldn’t have had the kind of facts the Star was seeking.

Read that sentence a couple of times to see if it makes sense logically. “Nor could Soudas explain why he was “outing” Velshi on Tuesday afternoon as the source of the tip to the Star.”

First Ms. Delacourt suggested that she herself was on the verge of outing Velshi as the source. And that brings up an interesting question. Wasn’t she the one guarding the identity of Velshi as her tipster? We Conservatives may share one big evil hive mind according to some, but I’m not sure how Soudas was able to “out” Velshi as Delacourt’s source to Delacourt. How did Soudas come to know that it was Velshi that told Delacourt the tip?

Somebody should ask Soudas how he came to learn that Velshi was the tipster.