Sask Party Calls on Calvert to Dump Swift Current Candidate – BUMPED

55 Replies to “Sask Party Calls on Calvert to Dump Swift Current Candidate – BUMPED”

1. I’ve said it before – scratch a leftie and you’ll find an anti-Semite.
   We’re going to have to start calling that “Kate’s Theorem”…

2. No, folks, I did read the Sask Party press release. Whining about “libelous conduct” of your political opponents and threatening law suits is standard fare political tactic. Heck, commenters here have been – rightfully – mocking the Liberal Party’s whining and threatening of libel lawsuits over lots of things recently.
   Here is what the press release claims is “libelous”:
   1. “You won’t believe this, but Brad Wall’s dad, John, a city council mainstay and owner of low rent properties, is putting Brad Wall signs on rental properties to make it look like they are Sask party supporters. I kid you not.”
   2. In his next post at 5:55 AM October 16, Potts posted: “Further to my previous post, there is a Brad Wall sign (rental property) on a known crack house.”
   #1 is only libelous if (a) Brad Wall’s dad was not putting up signs AND (b) his reputation has suffered because he did not put up signs. If it was truly libelous, the press release would have started out saying he did not put up those signs, so I’m guessing there is nothing here at all, despite their whining. And even if he did, for him to put up signs in front of his own buildings doesn’t seem to me to lower the reputation of Mr. Wall in the eyes of the public now would it?
   #2 cuts a little closer to the bone, but here there is absolutely no libel claim if, in fact, there is a Brad Wall sign in front of a crack house. Note again that the press release does not say anything about whether or not there is a sign in front of a crack house. Nor does it say anything about whether or not Brad Wall’s dad does or does not own a crack house. A series of statements can be libelous, though, even when they imply something that is not true instead of stating it outright, but the evidentiary dots are not connected here.
   And really, come on, are these really “about the most disgusting thing I’ve seen yet out of the NDP.”
   The comments were off-base, were stupid smears, but this is no big deal and to have this whining, faux outrage and threaten law suits over it diminishes the Sask Party. In fact, diminishes it just like many claim here the defamation lawsuit launched by Denis Coderre against Doan and the defamation lawsuit by Kennedy for being called a terrorist supporter diminishes those men and the federal Liberal Party.

3. You still haven’t read the lawyers letter have you Ted? Strange that I found it so easily. You are arguing for the Dippers, specifically Mr. Potts yet you claim not to be a Dipper?
   It is all about the lying there Ted, I know that lying does not personnaly offend you but it does a lot of us. When a person seeking public office lies about his opponent in public forum, using a written, recorded medium – not only does it say a lot about his moral compass but about his intelligence. When he calls his opponents Dad a slum landlord, when he does not in fact own any rental properties – that is a lie. If it damages his reputation – that is libel. Now you add to that lie the next layer which is he knowingly has a crack house as one of his properties then you have “maliciously misrepresented” in a damaging fashion. The fact that you don’t see that Ted puts you in a similar boat to Mr. Potts, both of your moral compasses seem to be skewed and neither of you can seem to connect the dots…
   This is a big deal, the comments were not off-base and they were mainly factual. I too do not care much about the press release but I do care about the legal opinion – which backs up the press release. If you don’t call these liers then they continue to use the traditional left wing smear tactic hoping that some mud will stick. We all still remember the “Hidden Agenda” smear by the Liberals, that turned out to be false as well didn’t it… if fact it was the Liberals who had the hidden agenda.

4. Commsguy: Right, because only a leftie has ever done any smearing or lying. Just what part of “he should resign” don’t you understand?
   Whether Watts’ father has been technically libelled or not, I frankly could care less. If he thinks he was libelled then he should sue. My guess is, political damage done, we won’t hear any peep from him. And that’s my point. If it is a libel, then why is the Sask Party and Sask Party supporters here huffing and puffing and whining about it? Honestly, do you think saying someone is putting up signs in front of low rent apartments is “the most disgusting smear” you have EVER witnessed????
   And just because I criticize the Sask Party’s hyperventilating hyperbolic faux outrage does not mean that I support – or would ever support – the NDP. Now THAT is a libellous statement!!

5. You are spinning again Ted, it was a blatant lie, it was caught and called. The NDP either had to support the lie, get caught up in the libel which was easily proven, or dump Potts. They dumped Potts so I can give them credit for being Politically Correct and pragmatic. They probably also got a legal opinion and were told they would lose, he wasn’t an owner of any rental property, he did not own the crack house (if it indeed exists) and he could not have put up Sask Party signs at “his” houses if he did not own any could he…..
   If this is best the NDP has to offer then they are in worse shape than anyone thought. If you had read the legal opinion you would have understood that the Sask Party was also damaged, in their opinion, by this action of Potts. I don’t think it is faux outrage, I think they were positioning their case, support by legal counsel.
   As for supporting the NDP – I make my judgement of people by what they do or try to achieve versus what they say. You have been downplaying this incident like PR Guru in spin cycle so I would have to say that you are not a Sask Party supporter and that you are left of centre, who do you support, the Greens?