Which MP Is The Worst?
ridenrain @ Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:07 am
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
Who cares if they can't write a letter to the ed? It's called party discipline, and it's important for a party that has as many media enemies as the CPC does.
And why is it such an affront to democracy if the Press Gallery isn't allowed to gather outside the Cabinet Room anymore? Prior to 1978, they weren't allowed to, and I don't think the Canadian Fifth Estate was considered an oppressed institution then.
This is much ado about nothing. Nobody in the country gives a shit except the media. You left-wing guys are just seizing on this non-story because you can't find anything of substance to criticize Harper on. And it irks you that he's climbing steadily in the polls as the weeks go by.
And why is it such an affront to democracy if the Press Gallery isn't allowed to gather outside the Cabinet Room anymore? Prior to 1978, they weren't allowed to, and I don't think the Canadian Fifth Estate was considered an oppressed institution then.
This is much ado about nothing. Nobody in the country gives a shit except the media. You left-wing guys are just seizing on this non-story because you can't find anything of substance to criticize Harper on. And it irks you that he's climbing steadily in the polls as the weeks go by.
We can probably rest assured the secret agends does not include sending troops off to fight, without consulting the people, laundering money through party friendly advertising co., starting multi-million dollar boondoggles, or pissing off our neighbors for our own popularity.
Rev_Blair @ Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:28 am
So because the Liberals were bad, the Conservatives don't have to answer for their actions? That isn't an argument, it's an excuse now that your pigs are at the trough.
Motorcycleboy @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:40 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
Nonsense, MB. I don't know where you learned about democracy, but in most of the world freedom of the press, including the freedom to ask questions of the government, is considered a basic tenet of democracy. The Canadian tradition of press scrums was considered by most people to be a huge step forward for democracy. Taking this away is a huge step backward because it limits scrums drastically.
Worse than that though, Harper said that he was going to be open and accountable...that transparency was important. It was the only part of his platform that didn't suck like a shop vac. Except it turns out that it was a lie. Instead of bringing us transparency, he's exceptionally secretive. What's he hiding?
Worse than that though, Harper said that he was going to be open and accountable...that transparency was important. It was the only part of his platform that didn't suck like a shop vac. Except it turns out that it was a lie. Instead of bringing us transparency, he's exceptionally secretive. What's he hiding?
I learned about democracy by growing up in a vibrant western democracy called Canada. And despite the hysterical fear mongering we've seen by the left in the wake of the federal election, we still qualify on that front.
This clampdown on the media by a new government is nothing new Rev, despite what you may think;
$1:
Harper clampdown follows Chrétien example
Mar. 29, 2006. 10:34 AM
CHANTAL HÉBERT
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is hardly the first to use his post-election honeymoon to expand the private space of his government at the expense of the parliamentary press gallery.
While the Parliament Hill media will — as they should — not give up an inch of its access without a fight, history suggests that, in the end, the Prime Minister will have his way.
As for the opposition parties who currently pay lip service to the cause of journalistic access, the evidence also suggests that once in power, they will pick up where Harper leaves off.
It may come as a surprise to a new generation of political journalists but when it came to restricting media access, Jean Chrétien's installation in power in 1993 was every bit as rocky.
Until Chrétien came along, for instance, journalists moved relatively freely in and out of the government and opposition private lobbies, mingling with MPs almost at will.
Under him, the practice came to an end with the media restricted to the public area adjacent to the House of Commons.
Unlike Harper, Chrétien did not threaten to keep the timing of cabinet meetings secret but he imposed a blackout on much of his agenda, including his visits to his Quebec riding.
Journalists who had expected to become as familiar with Shawinigan as they had been with Baie-Comeau under Brian Mulroney rarely set foot in St. Maurice — or at least not with Chrétien.
On his first official visit to Europe, a trip that involved stops in London, Paris and Brussels, Chrétien bluntly refused to fly in a government plane large enough to accommodate the media.
Whoever wanted to trek along had to hop across Western Europe on commercial flights and at much greater cost than some of the fees demanded by the current PMO.
In contrast with Mulroney, who routinely took the media aboard with him, Chrétien also largely left the gallery to its own devices whenever he travelled in Canada. Because commercial schedules don't keep pace with a prime ministerial jet, it often became logistically impossible to guarantee blanket coverage of Chrétien's domestic trips.
As for his first cabinet, if it was not under a formal gag order, its members sure acted like they were.
The 1993 press gallery did not take the new regime lying down. Then, as now, the parliamentary media were generous with their censure of the incoming government.
On the one-month anniversary of the 1993 election, The Globe and Mail's Jeff Sallot had this to say about one of the first meetings of the new cabinet: " ... (H)aving won their majority, Liberal cabinet ministers avoided the television lights yesterday with the same determination as former skin-cancer patients sheltering themselves from glaring holes in the ozone layer."
In an analysis published a few days later in the Hamilton Spectator, veteran journalist Don McGillivray told of the sharp contrast between the Liberals in power and their previous incarnation in opposition. "Last Thursday, for example, prime minister Jean Chrétien refused to participate in a `scrum' and strode through the media people waiting for him at the end of a cabinet meeting. `You used to stop and talk to us,' said a plaintive voice from the pack."
In the same piece, McGillivray reported that "some press gallery reporters have resorted to fax messages when the Liberal they're pursuing fails to return a call for a week or 10 days."
The Toronto Star was similarly underwhelmed. On Dec. 11, 1993, it awarded a "dart" to Chrétien's PMO "for playing coy with the press and the people. Why the sudden paranoia?" the paper asked.
That same month, political columnist Allan Fotheringham warned the new government of the perils of its ways :
"Chrétien, the veteran who has done it all, has a lot to learn if he thinks the old Trudeau/Mulroney secrecy gambit can be pulled off in this new Parliament ... The public won't put up with it any more, not to mention the press."
In fact, though, Canadians and the media did put up with it for more than a decade as Chrétien went on to line up two more majority governments.
Mar. 29, 2006. 10:34 AM
CHANTAL HÉBERT
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is hardly the first to use his post-election honeymoon to expand the private space of his government at the expense of the parliamentary press gallery.
While the Parliament Hill media will — as they should — not give up an inch of its access without a fight, history suggests that, in the end, the Prime Minister will have his way.
As for the opposition parties who currently pay lip service to the cause of journalistic access, the evidence also suggests that once in power, they will pick up where Harper leaves off.
It may come as a surprise to a new generation of political journalists but when it came to restricting media access, Jean Chrétien's installation in power in 1993 was every bit as rocky.
Until Chrétien came along, for instance, journalists moved relatively freely in and out of the government and opposition private lobbies, mingling with MPs almost at will.
Under him, the practice came to an end with the media restricted to the public area adjacent to the House of Commons.
Unlike Harper, Chrétien did not threaten to keep the timing of cabinet meetings secret but he imposed a blackout on much of his agenda, including his visits to his Quebec riding.
Journalists who had expected to become as familiar with Shawinigan as they had been with Baie-Comeau under Brian Mulroney rarely set foot in St. Maurice — or at least not with Chrétien.
On his first official visit to Europe, a trip that involved stops in London, Paris and Brussels, Chrétien bluntly refused to fly in a government plane large enough to accommodate the media.
Whoever wanted to trek along had to hop across Western Europe on commercial flights and at much greater cost than some of the fees demanded by the current PMO.
In contrast with Mulroney, who routinely took the media aboard with him, Chrétien also largely left the gallery to its own devices whenever he travelled in Canada. Because commercial schedules don't keep pace with a prime ministerial jet, it often became logistically impossible to guarantee blanket coverage of Chrétien's domestic trips.
As for his first cabinet, if it was not under a formal gag order, its members sure acted like they were.
The 1993 press gallery did not take the new regime lying down. Then, as now, the parliamentary media were generous with their censure of the incoming government.
On the one-month anniversary of the 1993 election, The Globe and Mail's Jeff Sallot had this to say about one of the first meetings of the new cabinet: " ... (H)aving won their majority, Liberal cabinet ministers avoided the television lights yesterday with the same determination as former skin-cancer patients sheltering themselves from glaring holes in the ozone layer."
In an analysis published a few days later in the Hamilton Spectator, veteran journalist Don McGillivray told of the sharp contrast between the Liberals in power and their previous incarnation in opposition. "Last Thursday, for example, prime minister Jean Chrétien refused to participate in a `scrum' and strode through the media people waiting for him at the end of a cabinet meeting. `You used to stop and talk to us,' said a plaintive voice from the pack."
In the same piece, McGillivray reported that "some press gallery reporters have resorted to fax messages when the Liberal they're pursuing fails to return a call for a week or 10 days."
The Toronto Star was similarly underwhelmed. On Dec. 11, 1993, it awarded a "dart" to Chrétien's PMO "for playing coy with the press and the people. Why the sudden paranoia?" the paper asked.
That same month, political columnist Allan Fotheringham warned the new government of the perils of its ways :
"Chrétien, the veteran who has done it all, has a lot to learn if he thinks the old Trudeau/Mulroney secrecy gambit can be pulled off in this new Parliament ... The public won't put up with it any more, not to mention the press."
In fact, though, Canadians and the media did put up with it for more than a decade as Chrétien went on to line up two more majority governments.
That's from the Star's Chantal Hebert, hardly a Tory shill.
Now, I know what you're going to say. You'll argue Harper promised more accountability blah, blah, blah, and as a result, he should be more open to the media than his predecessors.
But where in the CPC platform does it say a Tory Government will achieve further accountability by making life easier for the media? It doesn't. It says they will introduce changes through an accountability act, increased powers for the Auditor and Ethics Commisioner, etc.
Only very partisan media types would be so arrogant as to argue they are the essential mechanism for keeping this govt accountable. While it's true they play an important role in the process, that goal isn't achieved by making it easier for Kieth Boag to tape a 15 second soundbite from a rushed cabinet minister.
BluesBud @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:51 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
You should have put in the qualifier, that it had to be you're own MP or those lefty dippers out east will jump on the Emerson bandwaggon. Nothing like a band of robots parroting a party line. 
What!? Look in the mirror sometime!
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
PluggyRug @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:17 pm
BluesBud BluesBud:
ridenrain ridenrain:
You should have put in the qualifier, that it had to be you're own MP or those lefty dippers out east will jump on the Emerson bandwaggon. Nothing like a band of robots parroting a party line.
What!? Look in the mirror sometime!
I did and I was pleased with the picture.
My mirror is now clear as a bell, not clouded with the spray from mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence, pander to the left governance.
BluesBud @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:35 pm
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
BluesBud BluesBud:
ridenrain ridenrain:
You should have put in the qualifier, that it had to be you're own MP or those lefty dippers out east will jump on the Emerson bandwaggon. Nothing like a band of robots parroting a party line.
What!? Look in the mirror sometime!
I did and I was pleased with the picture.
My mirror is now clear as a bell, not clouded with the spray from mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence, pander to the left governance.
If that was pointed at me, I beg to differ. I am hardly, mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence, nor do I pander. I can intelligently debate my point of view. I am as intitled to my opinion as you are. I don't dispute your right to your slant on issues, even if I don't agree. That's what makes Canada great! We can debate issues without it coming to blows or worse. The problem is with those who take it so seriously that they see it as a personal attack!
Rev_Blair @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:39 pm
$1:
This clampdown on the media by a new government is nothing new Rev,
I'm pretty sure I already mentioned that there were columns calling Chretien more secretive than Mulroney in one of the other threads. It bit Chretien on the ass when he tried to clamp down on the media.
The thing is that Chretien had a large majority and several years to recover. He also had that odd charm that most political leaders have but Harper so deperately lacks. Chretien was able to win the press back. Can Harper?
$1:
Now, I know what you're going to say. You'll argue Harper promised more accountability blah, blah, blah, and as a result, he should be more open to the media than his predecessors.
Not "blah, blah, blah" at all, MCB. A free press that is able to question and hold the government to task is considered an integral part of a democracy. That's why they call it "the fourth estate." If Harper had any interest in being truly open and accountable, he'd be increasing media access, not restricting it.
And just to make the point one more time, saying that the Liberals did it too does not absolve the Conservatives of anything. It merely shows them to be as dishonest and twisted as their predecessors.
PluggyRug @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:45 pm
BluesBud BluesBud:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
BluesBud BluesBud:
ridenrain ridenrain:
You should have put in the qualifier, that it had to be you're own MP or those lefty dippers out east will jump on the Emerson bandwaggon. Nothing like a band of robots parroting a party line.
What!? Look in the mirror sometime!
I did and I was pleased with the picture.
My mirror is now clear as a bell, not clouded with the spray from mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence, pander to the left governance.
If that was pointed at me, I beg to differ. I am hardly, mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence, nor do I pander. I can intelligently debate my point of view. I am as intitled to my opinion as you are. I don't dispute your right to your slant on issues, even if I don't agree. That's what makes Canada great! We can debate issues without it coming to blows or worse. The problem is with those who take it so seriously that they see it as a personal attack!
No sir, I will not do personal attacks, unless of course someone attacks me first, then I reserve the right to defend by attack.
I apologise if thats what it appeared to be.
My comment was aimed at the general (IMO) poor governance from the previous government.
BluesBud @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:56 pm
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
BluesBud BluesBud:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
BluesBud BluesBud:
ridenrain ridenrain:
You should have put in the qualifier, that it had to be you're own MP or those lefty dippers out east will jump on the Emerson bandwaggon. Nothing like a band of robots parroting a party line.
What!? Look in the mirror sometime!
I did and I was pleased with the picture.
My mirror is now clear as a bell, not clouded with the spray from mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence, pander to the left governance.
If that was pointed at me, I beg to differ. I am hardly, mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence, nor do I pander. I can intelligently debate my point of view. I am as intitled to my opinion as you are. I don't dispute your right to your slant on issues, even if I don't agree. That's what makes Canada great! We can debate issues without it coming to blows or worse. The problem is with those who take it so seriously that they see it as a personal attack!
No sir, I will not do personal attacks, unless of course someone attacks me first, then I reserve the right to defend by attack.
I apologise if thats what it appeared to be.
My comment was aimed at the general (IMO) poor governance from the previous government.
I understand and accept, I to do not like the nastiness that comes up sometimes in these threads. Perhapes I to should make myself more clear. I did not want to make things personal. I was just making a point to ridenrain that his statement is very reflective of just about every post he makes. Very little backing to his points. To paraphrase him, "a righty dipper will jump on the bandwaggon. Nothing like a band of robots parroting a party line."
USCAdad @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:29 pm
"Even as we speak" Hedy get's my vote.
ridenrain @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:30 pm
Since that was directed at me, I'll get in here.
It's politics and we may jab back and forth but it's definately not personal. I have been a shocking party mouthpiece during the election but it has been in return to tired old retoric from the opposition.
"you need a new leader" is my all time favorite and now I get to return the favor. Did any of you Libs ask to borrow a sea-do?
Tricks @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:48 pm
Woot, julie gladman lost by nearly 11000 votes (CONSERVATIVE winner getting almot 14000) in the by election. SUCK ON THAT YOU STUPID HOE