Oh, Shiny Pony!

Joe Clark 'served as the 16th Prime Minister of Canada, from June 4, 1979, to March 3, 1980.' (Wikipedia)

That's less than a year!
I've always considered him to be a pompous liberal who was not up to the task of being Prime Minister. He's a petty man.

"Presstitutes" - a new term derived from the behaviour of those so named.

That is the new synonym for the MSM.

It's almost as good as Ezra Levant's term the "Media Party", which is dead on.

In this case the presstitutes are doing it for more than just money, it's also for the tingle they get running up their leg.

John, may we quote you on this?

Larry go right ahead, not much original there, its a bit like the oil sands, where we canadians are cleaning up the biggest natural oil spill known to mankind.
Same question for the enviro-mentalists, why do they not want us to clean up an oil spill of this magnitude?

Actually, JT isn't an imbecile, isn't stupid or any of the other denigrating insults he's being called. His only problem is he can't seem to avoid blurting out statements that reveal what he really thinks.

Dirtman, what more do you need to see and hear as proof of his idiocy?

I figured that Dirtman must have said what he did tongue in cheek. If not, then he's as dim a light bulb as The Toddler.

Dear Mr. Robertson,

Presstitutes = JT's Hoes?

There's plenty of evidence that Trudeau lacks maturity and a well-developed intellect. He seems to think that being Pierre Trudeau's son gives him the qualifications he needs to be Prime Minister, yet I saw a news clip where he walked away from a reporter in a huff, spitting out, "I'm NOT MY FATHER" when he wasn't able to answer a question. What has he really done thus far to warrant the position of national leader?

that or his kneepad brigade!!!

Yes, the media will try to do for this one trick pony what their US brethern did for the manchild in chief, unfortunately that narrative requires one component that the canadian media cannot make claim to.
You cannot make accusations of racism against those that oppose this ridiculous caracature that presumes to be PM material.

You and Mungman correctly point to the money paragraph.

FWIW, I'd try to take it another step. I was struck yesterday by the contrast between the meandering vicissitudes of Mr. Trudeau, Jr.'s pinball/spinball walk on so many things and the comments Mr. Harper made at the Ivey School Toronto-campus public Q and A on Friday, which were more or less covered by CBC here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-says-eu-style-deal-not-possible-with-china-1.2419680

By way of tangentially related (sort of) backdrop, I'd tie in what Mark Steyn has to say here:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/08/mark-steyn-on-miley-cyrus-the-post-american-world-and-a-return-to-canada/

I think there's quite a lot of historical turnabout going on. Whether we like it or not (and I didn't and still don't), Mr. Trudeau, Sr. in 1968 and for some years thereafter had some things to say that were evidently of interest to a significant plurality of Canadians, primarily in Central Canada. He seemed to be more articulate and in keeping with the times on such things as what to do about Quebec, the regional balance of power within the country, constitutional reform, the "Canadian identity" (particularly in light of the decline of Britain as a world power and the recent large intake of non-English-speaking immigrants), health care and the Canada-U.S. relationship, etc. than his opponents did. The Liberal Party held the upper hand in terms of voter affiliation and fundraising, and could count on a healthy dose of support from a relatively protectionist, clientalist and Keynesian business community, particularly around the perceived dangers of Quebec nationalism. And after years of tumult, nostalgic reminiscences and general ineffectiveness under Mr. Diefenbaker (who, by the way, opened the pandora's box of "constitutionally-guaranteed rights") and his immediate successors, the main opposition party was not really in a place to challenge any of that.

For many reasons, obviously, I think we're in a different place now. Mr. Harper has the more relevant things to say, much more in keeping with the times, IMO. It's possible, I suppose, that Mr. Trudeau, Jr. could win an election, but he seems to me to be the anachronism now, and well before his time, which is why his pronouncements, even leaving aside their muddled inarticulateness, sound so odd to me.

And I think there's been a shift in tone toward Mr. Trudeau, Jr. (almost like the China comments were a kind of last straw). The "presstitutes" are becoming touchy and defensive. I noted with interest that Andrew Coyne was getting in on the Twitter act the other day. And the comments here are much more derisive than they were only a few months ago, when they were sort of resigned -- which mirrors what I'm finding among folks I know: the China comments were real howlers.

David, I think you may be right about a change in tone from the presstitutes, but it's still very early days yet. They are so longing for a return to the days of the messiah that it's probably going to take a few more (or a few dozen more) clangers from Shiny Pony for the message to get through. The Ottawa Presstitute Gallery can be as stubborn as pigs after truffles before they will drop a narrative, particularly if it's one they've created.

Now about a historical turnabout, I think that's right as well. Remember, in the 1960s, the dominant foreign policy was Soviet Containment initiated by John Foster Dulles. Canadians were deeply unhappy about this starting in the late 1950s. It was bad enough that Canada would be the battleground of ICBMs crossing the Pole. Containment led directly to Vietnam, a war for which Canadians mostly had a visceral dislike. In general, Canadians saw Vietnam as a colonial struggle, not much different in essence from Kenya, Cyprus, Belgian Congo.

And in the incoherence of the Diefenbaker Conservatives, Canadians rightly thought that Pearson, Trudeau and the Liberals had a better grasp of world affairs.

But that was then. The world changed enormously in 1990 when the Wall came down. But the Liberals have never articulated any sensible foreign policy alternative other than reflexive Trudeaupian anti-Americanism. Nothing came from the Chretien administration except some feel-good follies like the International Landmines Treaty. It took the Harper Conservatives to break the 40-year deadlock on the India nuclear embargo, for example.

And now the Liberals are paying for this. JT can make idiotic remarks about China because in large part the Liberals have no post-Trudeau world view. They're still stuck in the '60s. They have no foreign policy template for JT to use when he's in the spotlight. And so, verbal explosions happen.

And so, the policy vacuum at the heart of the Liberals is going to doom JT, just as it doomed all the post-Chretien leaders. Three years from now is just about the right time for JT to self-destruct, and for the Ottawa Presstitutes to finally become disgusted with having to cover up one gaffe after another.

cgh >

"John Robertson should get top post of the day for inventing it."

No disrespect to John R. but the term “presstitutes” has been coined for years by Trends Journal founder and researcher Gerald Celente.

http://www.trendsresearch.com/gerald.php

Thanks Knight. First time I ever heard it. Kudos to Gerald.

I've been wondering if the MSM types won't try a different stunt. At some level, some of them, at least, have to have an inkling that it ain't workin' for Justin at the moment.

Heck, even Tom Mulcair has pulled in his horns, stopped making wing-ding statements about the resource sector, etc., shut Peter Julian, Pat Martin and Charlie Angus up and tried to make an even-toned go of it in the Commons. And Kady O'Malley's "he was only joking" had to have been cringe-making, even by CBC standards of journalistic malpractice, for her fellow-traveling colleagues. I thought they might be getting on to a narrative detour in the last part of the summer, when they started chastising Justin for lack of policy, but that went nowhere, apparently.

I can see them going over to criticizing Justin for the next six months (the tell-tale lead-in would be something like, "If Justin Trudeau wants to be prime minister, he's going to have a do a lot better than he did on "X" yesterday...").

That'd do a few things for them all. Namely, it would:

- allow the MSM types to say, "See: we're fair and balanced; we criticized Justin, too",

- give Justin cover to do a re-set, come out with a more plausible policy cover-story, and to say, "See: I listened and can take criticism", and

- allow the MSM types to subsequently revert to form and give Justin a glowing first-year review next April or so about "how shaky he was when he first became leader and how far he's come in the last six months."

David, I have no doubt that such will be the case. It will simply be a part of "we're getting Justin elected, but first we've got to break Shiny Pony to the halter."

The thing to remember in all this is that the Ottawa Presstitute Gallery is a very small, very incestuous little world. They really do drink each other's bathwater, they really do think the sun shines out of their nether regions, and they really do think that they are the principal means that anyone gets elected as PM. They really do think that it's not what a politician says is important. Rather it's important what THEY say the politician really said. For them, Ottawa doesn't exist more than about four blocks from Parliament Hill. They really do look at the Langevin Block and think, "there lies the enemy."

This is why they are so enraged by Harper. It's not because Tory policies so offend them. The Pinhead of CTV (Jane Tabor) famously declared about six-seven years ago that she had no interest in policy; it was all about "people and their power-games", in short, washroom gossip. They are enraged because Harper doesn't give the time of day to the Ottawa Presstitutes, thus demonstrating their vacuousness.

As Al Pacino famously said in the Devil's Advocate, "Vanity, it's my favourite sin."

Knight99 No offence to take, PRESSTITUTE , it is not my word, I just love its descriptive power for the vacuous twits that make our media.
Kate's explanation for S.D.A really says it all.
The appalling idiocy of CTV, CBC .. really caught my attention when the conservatives won their first election, gaining a minority .
For several months CBC would insist on telling us what Mr Harper said,what he meant and why he was evil.
But never show us the man speaking or let us hear the original words.
Then came the pathetic drooling over Obama Bin Lying.
Then Pravda,2009, reported on the climate-gate emails in an accurate and timely manner. CBC insisted on telling canadians nothing.
Recently the fake scandal machine has been misfiring badly for these propagandists, it is hard to sell to people you openly call stupid, ill informed and contrary if they do not agree with the "wisdom of the bubble heads".
Seems Liberal good/evil conservative bad does not sell any more.
Rob Ford is the latest example, sure he gets drunk and smoked crack, but he has performed better in office than any of the messiahs offered up by the media party.
But the real crime against our society committed by these incestuous losers, these presstitutes, is what they refuse to report.
CBC ever mention Antarctic ice growth? The stability of Canada's economy? The lack of global warming (using the IPCC's own metric) for 17 years? The criminal elements of these I.N.M fake indian protesters?Caledonia? The rape off the poor by feed in tariff in Ontario? The robbery of taxpayers by our kleptocracy?

It is said a free press is necessary to keep politicians honest, if that is true then we can also hold our press responsible for the systemic corruption of all levels of our bureaucracies.
They want the privileges of being "The Press" but have refused the responsibilities, they have betrayed us taxpayers,we know it and get our news from other sources.

john robertson >

Well Said!

cgh & John Robertson;
Excellent posts.

I now have a new descriptive, 'Presstitutes'. I will use it Lieberally so to speak.

You describe him perfectly, chutzpahticular.

He is all those things.

And he is not his father. Pierre was wrong most of the time but at least he was an intellectual, he had depth.

The kid is still, in his forties, a kid.

He's the rock star candidate.

But don't for an instant, make the mistake of thinking he's stupid. Underestimating your opponent is a good way to lose an election.