...can't wait for the subplot to raise its head.

You know "The Quebec Connection" - Groupaction, Alexism, Chuck Guite and where Paul Coffin goes around giving lectures on how to get government contracts...ethically.

It would be neat if there was a follow up on what actually is happening to the Adscammers.

To quote Greg Weston:
"In the immortal shrug of Jean Chretien: 'So, maybe a few million was stolen.'"

Lorraine hit the nail on the head. I've been following the MSM coverage of this beauty. As it stands CTV ran the story on the second tier of their website but nothing on the national telecast.

Global ran the story on the scrolling banner of their website but once again nothing on the national telecast.

The CBC. What story??

Volpe campaign spokesman Corey Hobbs said "all donations are in full compliance with the Canada Elections Act and with Liberal party guidelines."

Similarly, Steven MacKinnon, the Liberal party's national director, said he saw "nothing particularly untoward" about the donations.

"On the surface, there's certainly nothing illegal at all."

Right, and having one's children make equal donations of $5,400 doesn't suggest, just suggest, that 'something is not right'?

Exactly as Lorraine points out - why aren't the 'impartial, non-Liberal favoring, professional' newsrooms all over this?

Meanwhile, the offical media have been raising the alarm because Stephen-Harper-said-one-thing-and-someone-else-in-his-government-said-something-else.

Nothing like a sense of proportion.

Sherman owns and operates Apotex a generic drug manufacturer - the largest in Canada. Not drug stores.
I think the reason a generic drug manufacturer would finance a Librano is - well - generic.

Not illegal but defintely poor optics.

Just imagine how the MSM would be screaming "corporate influence!!!!" if a Conservative leadership contender had accepted a $54,000 donation from a drug corporation. They probably would have spun it as the impending end of Medicare!

... but according to Coyne there is no bias in the MSM.

Instead of Jan or the Puffy, I think Lorraine should be do interview, Then the questions would be asked!
Maybe...Joe how did you get away without going to jail???

Apotex . . Betito . . . LPC disgrace . . .

If ya can't just steal teh moany anymore, find a loophole.

from another time & place

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003163.html

"It's written to Stacey Cherwonak - a Forensic Firearms Tech with the RCMP.

From: Elie Betito
To: Stacey Cherwonak
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 1:30 PM
Subject: RE: Your party's announcement today...

take your NRA , GUN LOVING ASS BACK TO THE U.S. WHERE YOU BELONG, E. BETITO"

still there, working away for the LPC . . .

http://www.apotex.com/Contacts/Media.asp

* For Other Media Inquiries or Corporate Information:
Elie Betito, Director, Public & Government Affairs
ebetito@apotex.com

Imagine if Joe Volpe was conservative!!

I will be watching Ottawa Jane on QP with interest to see if she even brings up anything about this.

My bet - she will have the usual gaggle of PPG and pundits squawking about how the PMO is making their jobs tougher.

My second bet - her "whose not hot" - PMSH for his handling of the PPG?

Apparently the LPC has a plausible explanation for the poor optics in this story. I talked with a Liberal insider this morning who set the record straight.

I've got the scoop here:

syncrodox.blogspot.com

Syncro

It's "Taber."

Is anyone here suggesting that Mike Duffy isn't true-blue Conservative? You're kidding, right?

I should forward you private email he sent me, Dawg - (complaining about a post that mentioned his weight - talk about "crybabies" in the media, but that's a topic for another day.)

He stated that a "conservative friend" had directed him to my site. I take the selection of the adjective to define his friend to indicate he considers himself to be something other than.

He was Lib. Maybe smartened up this last time around.

One thing is certain: Susan Delacourt will not ask Hungry Volpe any questions. Her brother was on his political staff and is probably now on his campaign staff.

Great Post Syncro!
One can only wonder if the missing millions from all the various Liberal scams ferreted away in Cayman and Swiss accounts and generously spread around to various corporate entities may find its way back to corrupt the electoral process in ways like this for years, perhaps decades to come!
Daniel

As well, Susan Delacourt's husband used to work in Paul Martin's office.

The corruption... At one time I really liked Paul Martin and the Liberals. I felt that at least this bunch has the good sense to stick to the path laid out by Brian Mulroney and Michael Wilson; NAFTA, GST, pro business,etc. Get the economy going and balance the books, Mulroney put Canada on the path and the Liberals appeared to follow it. Who knew that they are really a bunch of thieves?

"Is anyone here suggesting that Mike Duffy isn't true-blue Conservative? You're kidding, right?"

Actually I met Duffy one night this past January at Hy's in Ottawa. He seemed like he had been drinking for a while. Once he found out my riding, he made an unfavourable comment about a Liberal MP from my city. I remarked how I always wondered what his political leanings were and he replied that his comment had nothing to do with his leanings; simply that my local MP was not a pleasant person. (I'm obviously cleaning up our conversation since this is a family site.) So I asked him just what his leanings were. He told me that on his show he leans opposite to whatever "guest" seems to be winning a debate/argument. He said a "group-think" show would be pretty boring for the audience. And he said that personally he didn't think it was anyone's business who or what he voted for. I would have to say that of all the talking heads, Duffy does seem MOST DAYS to at least make an attempt at balance. I don't think he always achieves it, (oddly as a CPC supporter I believe he often leans left), but at least he tries.

The benefits of satellite TV is that you can watch programs much earlier than you would see them in your own time zone.

Hence I caught Question Period from NFLD this morning. As to my preditions, I was right in that Janie and Craig had two topics of the day.
#1 topic was - of course the "war" with the PPG
Jane's parting shot was that they would be back in parliment tomorrow - if PM Harper speaks to them!!

Um Jane, sweetie, it is you not speaking to him. Unfortuantely, there is no e-mail address for QP on the CTV website. Jane made a comment that they had to put their names on a list for the Martin government, then she started in on a diatribe about how bad it is that they have the PMO is restricting questions by requiring a list.

The one journalist said that the PPG is getting many e-mails saying to stay the course - hmmmm, of course they would say that. Perhaps he needs to receive many more saying how arrogant most Canadians think they are.

The second topic - of course - was the liberal leadership (they really can't wait can they).

In addition to the PPG and the Liberal leadership - Dippy Jane Taber actually had this to say about fixed election dates.

How would that work - what if he got assassinated or something (god forbid)- she added as an afterthought.

Riiiigggghhhhtttt, Jane. Give your head a little shake.

I'm getting an education. I had always thought that Duffy was pro-Conservative. I didn't even think this notion was controversial.

But Kate, when Duffy referred to a "conservative Friend," that doesn't necessarily imply that he is something other. I have socialist friends. :)

Duffy relies on his blackberry for "leaks". The Conservatives have said they WILL NOT leak - that little game is over.

So one wonders WHO is leaking to Duffy. Hint: It is not Conservatives.

I laughed when last week the Liberals had to ask their MPs to give up their cell phones and blackberries when one of them was caught LEAKING to Bob Fife of CTV DURING their caucus meeting on Afstan.

Methinks there are some members of the Ottawa Press gallery going through "leak withdrawl"...

And how about that phoney news release handed out to the Ottawa Press Gallery that was on the PMO letterhead that was BOGUS.

And then the big headlines on a LEAKED memo about Kyoto from someone in Enviroment saying the Conservatives were going to block Kyoto at Bonn which was also bogus.

Questions: Was Stephen Harper being a realist (not a paranoid control freak ) when he banned blackberries and cell phones in his caucus meetings?

Was Stephen Harper being a realist when he said there are Liberal sympathizers within the civil service?

Or the courts? or of course the Liberal dominated Senate?

Remember the headlines when he said this - how the media blew this reality so out of proportion in the last days of the election campaign that it is said this cost him a majority.

Sometimes the truth is just the truth. No spin. No cover up. Now Harper's truths have become reality. What do the nay sayers who ridiculed him say now?

I watched CTV's Question Period for the first time today and to say that I was underwhelmed would be an understatement. Except for the first segment, with two commentators out of four (not including Craig Oliver) speaking to the Conservative side of the CPC/PPG issue, the rest of the hour-long program was overwhelmingly populated by media-friendly, Liberal friendly talking heads.

And, surprise, surprise! Jane Taber did not interview Joe Volpe. I wonder what that's all about? She told Mike Duffy on Friday that she would be interviewing him today and Mr. Volpe was nowhere to be found. Hmmm.

'Guess she and her producers knew the pressure would be on to see if she'd give Volpe the same rough ride she gave Rona Ambrose and Gwyn Morgan last week. 'Guess she didn't have the guts to ask Volpe point blank, "What's up with the $54,000 donation to your leadership bid, and from teenagers no less, and are the Liberals crooks?"

And the media says they're not biased? LOL.

Given the cozy relationship between some members of the media and the Liberal party, should the press bring in conflict of interest rules that would prohibit members of the press from taking Senate and other patronage appointments and public relations positions with political parties. It seems to me that this will at leasr be a step in eliminating an obvious conflict of interest. It is also consistent with the steps the politicians, public company auditors and financial analysts have taken.

I take every opportunity to make it known to those with whom I do business that I do not read the MSM garbage, and therefore my eyes never see their advertising placed therein. I also stress that this is a growing trend amongst those desperately trying to cleanse themselves of the collateral stench inflicted upon them by the hypocritical, lying, thieving, power-hungry and arrogant Libranos.

Commercially reward the balanced media, commercially punish the Librano sect.

Well lets just hope Joe wins the leadership and this turd of information can be aired.

As for JT. Forget it. There will be deadenders who will believe the CPC will never win a majority and they will work towards that end.

You see I am trying to figure this one out, perhaps you can help me.

Two apparently contradictory statements

1) The PPG says there is no anti conservative bias just a question authority bias in the PPG

2) The PPG says, that if they followed Harpers rules the governemnt would let conservative friendly (i.e. biased) reporters ask questions only.

So who are these biased conservative reporters, when there is no bias in the PPG, according to the PPG? I am most curious about that.

Once again Canadian reporters fail to ask the blindingly obvious question that is an inch from their face.

What a sad state of affairs. Harper is correct to stick to his guns on this one. IF the PPG is ready to talk and compromise then Harper can respond. Failing that, sorry PPG you'll have to actually be a reporter again.

It is funny how many of the moderate reporters speak of how the PPG got tangled into Blackberry reporting and picking up on lines fed to them from Scott Reid. Don't see much self examination on that question.

Time for a wholesale change in who the reporters are. No more JVD, no more JT, no more Bob Fife, no more Jim Travers or Keith Boag. Time for a wholesale change. New blood, new ideas, new relationships.

The delacourt thing just begs the question of objectivity.

Another question;
When the Liberals were prohibited from bringing their blackberries to caucus meetings why wasn't this reported by the press as an attempt by the Liberal brass to muzzle its members?

I would be amazed if there wasn't a major meltdown in the MSM in the near future. I don't think that PMSH is planning on backing down and if he stands his ground, the MSM are out of work. After all, the PPG needs the government in power for information. Whoops!!! What a no brainer that was. Since when have they been reporting what was "actually" said.

What kind of dirt has Jane Tooboring got on her bosses. In any kind of a reasonable world of reporting she'd have been fired long ago.

I don't know about the rest of you but I like Goldie Hyder as a defender of Conservative policies. He was on QP today with that snake oil salesman Scott Reid and he did really well. If the media is not biased then why would we have so many of them now working for Liberals i.e. Susan Murray, Maria McClintoch. I don't recall seeing anyone leave their paper to work for the Conservatives.
Harper has done a great thing with PPG. He has changed the debate and forced them to look at how they report the news. Given what he has said I suspect reporters will now look at their columns to asses whether there is bias in them. The media is protesting too much. I know I wrote the PPG complaining about their silliness but I guess the president of the PPG chose to think he had more positive support. Remember folks Harper is not stopping the press from asking questions. It is they who have chosen not to ask questions.

Perhaps the time has come for SDA (or some other blog) to start a Media-Liberal Relationship Tree.

We can start with Susan Delacourt - her brother and Volpe.

I am sure there are others. Then, we will know conclusively if there is the possibility of a Liberal bias in the media or not.

Sounds worthwhile, but we don't need any more proof. We can see for ourselves from year after year of apparent bias that the MSM is pro-Liberal and anti-Conservative. We just know.

I watched Question Period today as well.

Not surprised that Jane Taber was her giggly self when she interviewed Liberal Leadership hopefuls....the opposite of how rude she was last week when she interviewed Rona Ambrose. Must have been jealous I guess.

She also "corrected" Craig Oliver when he said that Stephen Harper may be doing himself future harm in not playing nice with the PPG because what if the PPG found the new Liberal leader as the new messiah, and they continually gave him good press. Jane said, but that's not us, because we're balanced.

Really??? If you're balanced, then you wouldn't find a "new messiah", you would just report the news, wouldn't you?

Their bias shows clearly all the time, and it's like they're the last to know.

Jane's question on fixed election dates was truly stupid. I wish someone would do a news story on how some of these people got their jobs.

Amen, Amen , and Amen

Jane Taber is right. The media would never appoint a new Liberal messiah as they always are balanced in their treatment of Liberal leaders. Except of course for Paul Martin crowned by the media as a great leader and great orator until finally the public figured out he couldn't put together 2 coherent sentences. (I wonder how a Conservative would have been treated who stuttered like PM) And then of course there was John Turner the heir apparent to PET. Ditto for him. Of course they can never be accused of annointing Conservative leaders as evidenced by their treatment of scary Stephen Harper and the way they wrote him off as someone who could never win the leadership of the Conservatives and who most certainly was not prime ministerial material. And then of course there's Bob Stanfield, Preston Mannning...Balanced very balanced.

Helen, I liked Goldie Hyder too. He was very articulate and even though warning bells went off when I heard that he was connected to Joe Who? Clark, I was pleasantly surprised at how
well he did defending PMSH and the CPCs. We should see more of him!

Did anyone else think that Jane Taber looked spooked today, kind of like she hadn't slept very well last night? She stumbled on a lot of words and just didn't seem very together. I mean, more than usual not very together.

I'd like to think that what she's been hearing outside the Ottawa Beltway has put her off her game, that reality may be breaking in on her charmed life. Maybe the coach is turning into a pumpkin, and the horsemen back into mice. 'Only, I don't think any glass slipper is going to be doing the rounds tomorrow.

And speaking of being off your game and no glass slippers: I got a response from Greg Weston to an e-mail I had sent him about his and the PPG's bleating. In it, he put words in my mouth, and then came to the conclusion that because he didn't agree with the words he had put in my mouth, we obviously had nothing to talk about.

Isn't that a description of talking to yourself?

It's going to be fascinating to see how this plays out. The PPG aren't used to brooking opposition, and PMSH seems intent on doing things his way, and why shouldn't he? Stand off at the OK Corral.

Stephen Harper as Gary Cooper?

Why not?

I think there should be a review of the MSM starting with Brian Mulroney (tainted tuna, Charlie Brown lady,how they treated and hounded the cabinet ministers etc.)
Then the MSM should be forced to apologize and face up to thier bias! Then Prime Minister Harper could talk to them.
There are more angry folks besides me out there, I see.

I second the motion for a review of the evil MSM.

There is clearly a right-wing cabal at work: evil MSM outlets like the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Montreal Gazette, the Winnipeg Free Press, Le Soleil, the Vancouver Province, the Calgary Herald, the London Free Press, the entire Sun chain and La Presse all endorsed Stephen Harper for PM. That sounds like Korporate Koncentration to me.

Dr. Dawg:

Of course all those media outlets endorsed Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his CPC government: Given the sleazy and scandal-ridden LPC and its lacklustre leader's totally dismal performance during the election campaign, they pretty well had to or they would have looked like total idiots and Liberal-party patsies.

Now that the election's over and the Liberal perks and patronages are at a decided premium, it's time to bash Harper and his party again. That is the natural default of the MSM in Canada. They actually have a lot to answer for concerning the mess that governance in Canada has become. You've got to give Stephen Harper and his party credit for putting on their wellies and wading into the barnyard merde that federal politics has become.

There's something different about Stephen Harper, something that sets him apart, and that's why he's being pecked. I don't think he'll be pecked to death, which is what the barnyard culture (sic) does, but he's being bloodied.

I sense that PMSH is a man of principle and that his government is run on more than just a crass appeal to power, which is definitely something that sets him apart from more recent political animals who've fancied themselves as the cocks of the walk.

With the last election, however, the pecking order in Ottawa has changed. And the thing that totally drives dishonest incompetents to distraction is a person who doesn't operate out of their own set of principles, or lack thereof. They can't stand someone whose way of doing things reveals their corruption and incompetence.

And that someone is Stephen Harper. It's not business as usual with him and his government, and it's driving the Libs crazy, not to mention the Libs' media hangers on. They just do not understand this guy. They can't figure out what makes him tick because their modus operandi is so foreign to his: He's smart, he's honest, he's not currying their or anybody's favour, he's not handing out favours, he's moving forward all the time without looking back. He's outsmarting them!

I'm fascinated to see how all of this is going to shake out. After years of being a media watchdog and being absolutely disgusted by how our political process and governance has been dragged through the mud by successive Liberal imposters, I'm hopeful that things are finally starting to turn around under a Harper government.

This may be legal but it certainly doesn't pass the smell test, and I'm certainly not one to say Volpe wouldn't do worse.

But I'm not going to get worked up about this until Stephen Harper let's us know about who contributed to his last two leadership campaigns. $54,000 to the first person who can provide me with the list from his campaign before 2003.

As for the media-friendliness, it still amazes me how quickly you "MSM is anti-Conservative" continue to (a) completely ignore the 2006 election coverage and (b) completely ignore half the media out there. What, the National Post, the entire Sun media chain, Global News, both major Calgary dailies, etc. etc. etc. ... none of those count as "MSM"? Why? Just because they are pro-Conservative?

Besides, as for the newsworthiness of this item, there is a bit of a "are you surprised element" to the story since it is Volpe afterall, and when he doesn't have a chance to come as high as 5th, it's not really news.

Ted
Cerberus

I'm a Conservative supporter, but I think that the reason so many journalists went to join Liberal ministers was not so much because of bias, but because they bought into the myth that the Libs are the Natural Governing Party. It's very possible that some are Liberals. Many more were no doubt in it for the money and ability to get close to power. Assuming that the CPC is now in power for a minimum of 6 years and more likely 10 years or more (as I do) I actually believe you will see the trend shift and more journalists will join the staff of Conservative ministers. It's only natural that they gravitate to power.
Just my tc.

Gosh - imagine if the contribution was to a CONSERVATIVE leadership candidate??

Well, we will never know if it is the first leadership contest for the Alliance/Reform/CPC/whatever, as Stephen Harper TO THIS DAY has refused to release his list of financial supporters.

What a fine and sterling example of transparency.

Also, it is hilarious to see you "blinders on, drank the kool-aid" partisans declare that the dreaded MSM are anti-conservative beacause once in a blue moon they don't absolutely follow your party talking points.

Did you even watch the last election campaign? You got away with murder and the softball that the so-called "liberal media" played with you helped get you elected.

Get real.

Also, agree with previous (Cerberus?) that this Volpe garbage appears slimy, but it's Volpe - surprised? Its just hilarious that he is in the race at all.

Oh, and "new kid on the block" are you Jordan Knight or Sandy Buckler? What you are seeing in Harper is the first backroom political hack to become PM, and what happens when a PM plays hardball politics with everey issue - substance be damned. It works with a shallow, pliant media and little real analysis.

Ah - Torywatcher - you added a few more words to the typical Liberal chant- but you forgot petulant Bush American style fatso eats babies control freak micro manger and the new one from Beer & Popcorn Scott Reid that all good Ottawa media types are using these days - bully.

HoHum.

Harper got away with murder??? Do tell- what did he kill besides a whole bunch of Liberal hangers on dreams of instant wealth and riches; patronage appointments and gifts for all my friends.

Let's not forget Lawrence Martin here...who Puffy has on "Mike Duffy Live" every Friday, along with giggly Jane...
This Fri past he said "Let's do the arithmetic here..most of the media in the country is Conservative...Canwest Global - Sun Media"...
Yep, no Liberal bias, PM Harper doesn't know what he's talking about...
LOL, Duffy interviewing 2 Libs...

Most of the media is Conservative? Wow, I am going to have to renew my Globe and Mail sub. Let me grab one off the news stand tomorrow, and I will get back to you, because I have not read one in a while. I hope to be surprised.

Ted -- Oh, because he is only 5th place in popularity to be the new Lieing face for the natural ruling party, it is not newsworthy. Yeah, right. I normally expect better excuses from you.

Correct me if I'm wrong(Cerberus,torywatcher),but it seems I read somewhere that the only names of PMSH's donators not released weren't required to be!?
e.g. thse under $200.

torywatcher: Nope, not even close: Sandra Buckler (I do know who she is) and Jordan Knight (who's he?) are not me. But nice to think that my comment is a twofer.

It's pretty clear what universe you're from. "Dreaded MSM"? Give me a break. Dreadful, OK, but not dreaded.

All I'm asking of the MSM is the same professionalism I ask of myself when I go to work every day. What's my job? Make sure I know what I'm doing. Take into consideration all of the parametres, recognizing that there are professional standards to uphold, like fairness, knowing what I'm talking about, taking it upon myself to find out all the information needed to make informed judgments and choices, listen to all sides in matters where decisions need to be made, etc. You know, the usual stuff if you're going to do your job properly rather than a hack job.

torywatcher: Raise your standards and you might begin to understand where a lot of us are coming from who are disgusted with the crass cronyism and lack of integrity and objectivity in our MSM. Hey, I don't even mind biased reporting if the paper or journalist is honest about it: "I love the Liberals. I love all the perks and fun I have when I hang around them and they pay the bills." I might think that they're a bunch of sell-outs and jerks, not to mention sleaze bags and low-lifes, but at least they've been transparent.

It's this garbage when, draped in patronage booty, they drone "What bias? We treat every politician the same way."

Torywatcher and Ted - the media is biased to the left? (I must clean up my spewed coffee)

Really - why then does Mike Duffy and QP and CTV news and Don Newman's Politics consistently have pundits and journalists on who continually dinigrate the CPC, their policies, their backgrounds, Steven Harper's perceived whining, his weight, his hair, his shaking hands, his background, yet they make passing mention of the millions of dollars stolen from the Canadian taxpayers by the Liberals in the gun registry, HRDC, Strippergate to mention a few and not even a question about Volpe's "kid donations.

If they are biased against the left - then why does Duffy ask questions like ~ is shutting down the gun registry going to play well in the big cities - rather than ~ how is the fact that the Liberals cooked the books on the gun registry going to hurt them in the next election?

You see Tory watcher and Ted - it is all in the types of questions, the phrasing, the innuendo, the asides, the snarky comments. While we may get news reports about the liberal scandals, we get personal comments about the CPC - that is the difference and that is what shows bias.

Just take off your red colored glasses for a week and watch and listen then come back and tell us that there is no bias.

Lorraine and New Kid....good stuff!!!! Sometimes the most obvious is the funniest.

Ted and Torywatcher.... You guys are really slipping. It's Joe Volpe, we can't expect anything but sleaze??? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more. I guess this excuse is the kissing cousin of "Maybe a few million was stolen, so what"?

Oh and it's not really a story because Joe is only in the middle of the pack of pretenders to the throne. Nothing to see here, move on, move on!!

You're both missing a key point here boys. It's not just a Joe Volpe issue, it's a business as usual declaration by the national director of the LPC.

I refer you to a quote from the CTV story:

Volpe campaign spokesman Corey Hobbs said "all donations are in full compliance with the Canada Elections Act and with Liberal party guidelines."

Similarly, Steven MacKinnon, the Liberal party's national director, said he saw "nothing particularly untoward" about the donations.

"On the surface, there's certainly nothing illegal at all."

Now I would expect Volpe's campaign manager to make the statement he did, you know, cover yer ass and all.

What I find more telling is Steven MacKinnon's comments. Being the NATIONAL DIRECTOR of the LPC one would think he might weigh in with something more substantial than "It aint illegal".

On the surface nothing is illegal. But what happens if someone has the guts to scratch the surface?

I again refer you to the CTV article:

An Elections Canada spokeswoman declined to comment on the donations other than to say that any complaints should be filed with the elections commissioner.

To guard against companies trying to bypass the ban on corporate donations, the law includes several clauses making it a crime for any individual to "act in collusion" with others to circumvent the donation limits and prohibitions.

Among other things, it is illegal to conceal the identity of donors, to compensate a person for making a donation, or to make a donation that actually comes from another person.

Sooo, laws may well have been broken.

Now this is just me, but were I the national director of a political party which was trying to distance itself from a past riddled with corruption and theft I would start doing a little scratching on the shiney new paint job.
(whitewash??)

I've worked in the heavy construction field a good portion of my life. When a piece of equipment is old and worn out one is faced with a decision.

Option A: Tear it apart bit by bit and restore it to working condition.

Option B: Buy ten gallons of shiney yellow paint and cover up all the deficiencies. As soon as the paint is dry, haul the piece of shit to Michner Allan Auctions and see what idiot you can get to buy the garbage from you. In the business this is known as a ten gallon overhaul.

Both options are legal, only one is ethical. Can either of you two guess which is which?

What are you buying?

I plan on filing a complaint with Elections Canada regarding this bullshit.

I suggest you do the same, or live with a face as red as that card in your wallet. Or maybe not, it seems most members of the LPC are incapable of shame or embarassment.

Syncro

Just take off your red colored glasses for a week and watch and listen then come back and tell us that there is no bias.

Why not remove your blinkers and tell us why every major newspaper in the land, except for the Toronto Star, endorsed Harper for PM?

Let's be honest, here. You simply don't want your Maximum Leader asked any hard questions. What you want is kow-tows and curtseys, downcast eyes and demure demeanour on the part of the media. Ain't gonna happen, and Harper will learn this to his cost.

I agree with Ted, there's no story on another Liberal displaying unethical behaviour. Too bad Volpe wouldn't have had a bigger family then he could have really made a large donation.

Oops my bad! I meant "too bad the Apotex president wouldn't have had a bigger family"

Dr. Dawg: Give your head a shake, buddy...the LPC, Paul Martin and Chretian were being roasted alive by the Gomery commission! How could they possibly have supported the liberals when they were stinking to high heaven at the time?! They had a choice to make...stick with the liberals and be tainted with their smell, support the NDP (sub 20% support) or go with the Conservatives...and so they supported the Conservatives. Actually, if they wanted to pretend that they are not biased, they shouldn't have supported ANYBODY and should have remained neutral.

I'm sure they WOULD have supported the Liberals happily, had not Captain's Quarters (thanks, Cap'n) been blogging with inside information on the commission's proceedings.

That is hardly a proper example. Try something more substantive and long-running as an example of bias, not an example of rat's leaving a sinking ship.

Dr.Dawg -- I am not sure about the rest of the country, but the Vancouver Sun was pushing the Liberals big time prior to the election. It was a total shock that the editor came out on the Saturday before the election, and endorsed the CPC, but he was the only one. And this took up about 1/8 of a well buried page.

Dr.Dawg -- I am not sure about the rest of the country, but the Vancouver Sun was pushing the Liberals big time prior to the election. It was a total shock that the editor came out on the Saturday before the election, and endorsed the CPC, but he was the only one. And this took up about 1/8 of a well buried page.

Dr. Dawg,

Please cut the crap: "Let's be honest, here. You simply don't want your Maximum Leader asked any hard questions. What you want is kow-tows and curtseys, downcast eyes and demure demeanour on the part of the media."

Get real. When has Stephen Harper NOT been asked tough questions? When has the MSM EVER kow-towed to him or questioned him with downcast eyes and a demure demeanour? Just Julie VD alone evokes the image of a shrieking Banshee and she's just the fright wig on the cake.

You lefties live on some other planet. We've been invaded. Please THINK, use your grey matter, check out past MSM interviews with PMSH and then tell us, in which ones was he treated with any deference? In which ones did he receive a pass by his interviewers on tough issues?

Some evidence please of what the H___ you're talking about. Liberals/lefties always want a free ride to say anything they like in order to contradict a C(c)onservative opinion, but you never seem to think you need to back up what you say. Well, you do, or your opinion doesn't mean a thing.

So please do.

You obviously don't know how to read. I referred, very clearly, to what you people WANT, not to what the PM has been GETTING.

Must be that socialist edication system of ours.

I sure as heck don't want downcast eyes, demure demeanours, curtsies or kow-towing to Stephen Harper; the last time the media treated a party leader like that nothing was uncovered and the Librano$ were able to rob the Canadian public blind. No thanks.

Just some common courtesy--not a curtsey--would do. Just a recognition that if nothing else the MSM should show respect for the office of the Prime Minister and for the person of the individual holding the office.

The MSM has no business playing the role of prima donna; it does it badly, for one thing, and for another, it has no claim on such a role for itself. The problem, of course, is that its members have felt entitled for so long that they think they play the part beautifully. It's actually very unbecoming and they're doing their reputation severe damage as they carry on the ugly charade.

Perhaps you might provide an example or two of how the PM has been treated with disrespect by his PPG questioners? What makes a question disrespectful, exactly?

Do you remember, Dr. Dawg, woof, woof, (sorry, something just came over me) when a few months ago PMSH asked Tim N., a journalist at the back of the PPG line, for his question, and Julie VD began shrieking like a harpie that it was her turn to speak, wasn't the PM going to ask questions of the people FIRST in line, yada, yada? She wouldn't shut up and intimidated younger and less experienced journalist Tim into NOT asking his question.

That's one incident that comes to mind. Then there was their wholesale hissy fit, a few days ago, when most of them walked out of the press conference.

That was a class act. And we can't even get a list from anyone of who, exactly, walked off the job. You'd think that if they thought they were doing the right thing, they'd stand by their actions and allow their names to be published.

In both instances, total lack of professionalism, total lack of respect for the Prime Minister.

It all stinks, actually, and all the members of the MSM are going to have to show for their appallingly crass and craven behaviour is dwindling subscriptions and paper sales. I'm sure not contributing to any of their coffers.

That wasn't disrespect for the PM. It was a collective show of opposition to the PM's wish to control who will be permitted to ask him a question.

Funny how traditional conservative support for freedom of the press and such went out the window when Their Man became PM.

A quotable quote:

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Freedom of the press, my ass.

First of all, DD: Comment, please, on Julie VD's assinine behaviour.

I knew you'd say the walking out of the press conference was "a show of opposition to the PM's wish to control who will be permitted to ask him a question." Predictable.

Well, it's the PM's prerogative to control who will ask questions and how they'll be asked. Both Chretien and Martin did and all PMs have had to lay ground rules as to how the press will interact with them. This is not new to Stephen Harper, though the way the MSM and you and your bunch construe it, Stephen Harper is the ONLY PM who has ever dared to put restrictions on the press.

The infantile behaviour of the PPG has nothing to do with "freedom of the press." Rather it's the license of the press to do and act exactly as they please, with very few restraints of professionalism or discipline. They're an unruly gaggle of rabble, and as far as I'm concerned they can continue their tantrum. It will do more damage to them than the PM or his party.

Well, it's the PM's prerogative to control who will ask questions and how they'll be asked.

Yikes. That about says it all.

Yikes, what, Dawg?

No comment on the historical reality of Prime Ministers dealing with the press?

No comments on Julie Van Dusn't's shrieking harpie schtick?

Just yikes?

'Won't do.

Your ice flow keeps getting smaller by the minute. Put on your wet suit, DD, you're about to go under.

Glug, glug, glug.

Both Chretien and Martin did and all PMs have had to lay ground rules as to how the press will interact with them.

Please expand on this.

Dr. Dawg-there is a book out called Scrum Wars, which tells how previous PMs have controlled the press. The author has even been on Newman, and there are several articles in many newspapers. You mean you missed this. As for contributors to Steven Harpers campaign, the grassroots financed a huge percentage, with amounts 200.00 and less. That is foreign to liberals. If you had taken the time to attend any of his appearances you would have seen this. As for bias, how big a story was it when Chretains son was in trouble with the law. JVD is a hypogrit, who needs to see a hair stylist instead of complaining about Harpers hair. When have martins or chretains outfits ever been lambasted. Were they ever asked if they loved Canada, or for that matter, if they ever stole from cdns. Has giggles ever asked Bisson if he leaked sensative info re Income Trusts. How big a story is it when Martin sneaks in and out of the back door. How big a story was it when PET used the F word in the HofC, or gave the finger to the west, or said Why should I sell your wheat. Who asked Chretain to explain his stmt, so maybe a few million were stolen, or the bill of sale on a napkin. The members of the PPG are just upset because years of a** kissing will not pay off with a senate seat or ambassadorship, or the next GG. Now Harper has sent a message to the senate-8 yr term, not till 75. If provinces don't enact laws to hold senate elections, I think he will just leave vacancies in those provinces until they do. Dawg, maybe you have a short memory but conservatives don't.
For all those saying Harper only got 36% so 64% voted against him, martin got 39% so 61% voted against liberal policies. And remember when headlines screamed 30% against Clark, and never mentioned that 70% were for him.

If it hadn't been for the evil MSM, Mary, how would you ever have learned about all the dreadful things that the Liberals got up to?

You really can't have it both ways. In any case, other PMs might have had their wars with the media, but no one, at least to my knowledge, has demanded outright the right to pick and choose who will ask them questions--until Harper came along.

Dawg, I think MaryT cooked your argument pretty thoroughly.

There is no picking and choosing but rather a civilized rotation of questions where everyone gets a chance to pose their query.

The pack of yapping dogs approach never seemed fair somehow. TG

They were doing this already, lining up at a microphone.

Geeze, I wish you people would at least get your facts straight.