January 18, 2006

And Pulling It Down Tightly Over The Ears

Continuing the discussion ..

Andrew Coyne;

"What I wonder is whether this was an experiment that went horribly awry. The "Alberta" thing sounded to me like a surrogacy strategy: get Buzz to say the dirty things Martin can't. But then the monster escaped from the lab."

They're crawling out of the Birkenstocks now... David Suzuki may have just violated the CBC's own journalistic standards by publicly endorsing NDP candidate Marilyn Churley.

Update - Liberals in full-fledged damage control

Toronto Star has more on Hargrove's "Alberta" angle. And new pro-Harper convert, Paul Martin has endorsed the Conservative leader's patriotism;

Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove used a campaign stop in nearby Strathroy to call Conservative Leader Stephen Harper a separatist whose Alberta-born political principles place him outside mainstream Canadian values.

He seemed to agree with questioners that Quebecers vote for the Bloc Quebecois over the Conservatives.

Prime Minister Paul Martin issued a retraction on Hargrove's behalf as soon as the comments hit the news wires, and was forced to praise Harper?s patriotism in an effort to quell the controversy. "I have large differences with Stephen Harper but I have never doubted his patriotism," Martin said at a news conference in London.

As for Alberta, the prime minister said "the values that we hold in this country go from coast to coast."

"The fact is, there are differences of opinion in this country. They don?t exist only in one province. They exist in other provinces as well."

Hargrove later issued a clarification, but only of his statements regarding Harper and Quebec. Hargrove's statement said he recognized Harper is a federalist, but said that the Tory leader's idea of devolving power to the provinces would harm the federation.

Hargrove was much more blunt speaking to reporters in Strathroy.

"If you devolve all the powers to the provinces, what do you have left?? he said. "His view of the country is a separatist view."

Under repeated questioning from reporters about whether Quebecers should vote for the separatist Bloc Quebecois rather than a Conservative, Hargrove appeared to support the Bloc. "I would urge them to stop Harper in any way they can," he said of Quebec voters.

His comments on Alberta were even more provocative.

"Mr. Harper doesn't have a sense of Canada and its communities," the union leader said. "His sense is about Alberta. The wealth of Alberta everybody recognizes is much greater than it is anywhere in Canada. Those principles that he is brought up with and believes in coming out of there don't sit well with the rest of Canada."


Posted by Kate at January 18, 2006 1:24 PM

What I will never understand is the Double Standard ...

If Ralph Klein, Preston Manning, or Mike Harris say anything it is representative of what the Federal Conservatives think; and thus evidence of their secret agenda.

When Buzz Hargrove says something, he is speaking as a conserned citizen.

Hypocracy, the value Canada is built on.

Posted by: NoOne at January 18, 2006 1:29 PM

Never mind pyromaniacs.

These complete dufusses are in a complete and utter CHERNOBYL political meltdown.

The name Liberal will be politically radioactive for centuries.

Now what was the half-life for half-wits?

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at January 18, 2006 1:38 PM

The CBC has journalistic standards?

Posted by: Pd at January 18, 2006 1:43 PM

First paragraph from a CP article at The Toronto Star:

"The Liberals are in full damage control this afternoon after a high-profile campaign endorsement by the head of Canada’s largest private-sector labour union turned disastrous."

Thank you Basil!


Posted by: Mississauga Matt at January 18, 2006 1:51 PM

hypocrisy =

may have violated the CBC's own "journalistic standards" by "publicly endorsing"


Posted by: Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man at January 18, 2006 2:00 PM

The CBC is the only MSM outlet who is saying nothing about the buzz on Buzz. It's seems to be news everywhere else...

Posted by: MolarMauler at January 18, 2006 2:02 PM

This has Rick Anderson written all over it. You know - the brilliant strategist who had control of the Alliance machinery and still could not deliver the leadership to Manning.

There is very little doubt that the snake is actively working for the Liberals.

Posted by: anon at January 18, 2006 2:02 PM


How is paying for an internet web log any different than paying for television, or radio, or billboard, or lawn sign, or printed flyer, or magazine, or newspaper advertising?




Posted by: Doug at January 18, 2006 2:08 PM

"How is paying for an internet web log any different than paying for television, or radio, or billboard, or lawn sign, or printed flyer, or magazine, or newspaper advertising?"

Because a web-log isn't an ad ...

The fact is that the views of a web-log represent the views of it's writer and (hypothetically) are not for sale; I'm certain that for $1 Billion even Kate would endorse the Liberals.

Essentially, Bloggers are (best) compared to Columnists in the opinion section of a newspaper or Editorial Reviews that are done on Television News shows (or talk radio shows).

The difference is an advertizement is someone who is paid to represent a certain viewpoint in a public forum, whereas a blog is someone who is expressing their own viewpoint in a public forum. One is independant the other is not.

Posted by: NoOne at January 18, 2006 2:18 PM

"Because a web-log isn't an ad ..."

One of the beauties of blogging is your independence. If someone were to pay us to toe party lines, well, there are cheaper fart-catchers out there. Parrots are sold at pet stores across Canada. No need to co-opt.

Besides, by being independent we get to, eventually, attack everybody as happened when conservative bloggers in the US turned on GWB's Harriet Meiers Supreme Court nominee.

What's more, if I wasn't paying for a blog each month its money I'd blow on beer and popcorn anyway. Look at it as a free market form of adult day care, keeping us off the streets and out of trouble.

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at January 18, 2006 2:25 PM

There are a few days left for the blogging community to inform the CBC that pimping for Layton's crypto -communist ND's on our dime is not appreciated.
Fair and balanced from CBC?

Posted by: Joe Molnar at January 18, 2006 2:26 PM

I don't pay for my blog. It's free from Blogger. It's part of Google.

My blog cost me exactly zero. It's worth to you may or may not be more than that but you can't claim zero as a contribution to the tories.

Also, the NDP and Liberals have their own bloggers. Why are they not also being persecuted for daring to have an opinion?

Anyone who tries shutting me down better have a gun. A BIG F***ING GUN!

As for the CBC's so-called "journalistic" standards, they only apply if one of their propaganda hacks did something so foolish as to endorse a conservative. Then you'd see their "standards" in full effect.

Is the $1billion a year the taxpayer bilked for the CBC not a liberal/ndp campaign contribution?

Posted by: Warwick at January 18, 2006 2:31 PM

To be sung to the tune of White Rabbit (with apologies to Jefferson Airplane):

One party makes you larger
And one will make you small
And the one that lefties give you
Don't do anything at all
Go ask Buzzboy
When he's feelin’ ten feet tall

And if you go chasing Liberals
And you know you're going to fall
Tell'em a hookah smoking Stick-Chick
Has given you the call
Call Buzzboy
‘Cause he’s really just small

When men on the chessboard
get up and tell you where to go
And you've just had some kind of mushroom
And your mind is moving low
Go ask Buzzboy
I think he'll know

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And Jack Layton’s talking backwards
And Uncle Paulie’s off his head
Remember what the Bloc-heads said:
"Feed your Head
Feed your Head!"

Posted by: Iron Lady at January 18, 2006 2:46 PM

Well, my blog is only part of a larger website, so the cost of my webserver would have to be partitioned out according to something... visits, perhaps? If that was the case, my photoblog of my family would certainly be scored higher than my political musings, since I have more viewers there... Also, is it possible to be a shill for all the parties at the same time? I only ask because I know of a couple blogs, mine included, which are multi-author, with viewpoints from all along the political spectrum. So who would our contribution go to then? Do you divide it by percentage of posts about any given political party or by some other measure? Good grief!

Posted by: Ian H. at January 18, 2006 2:55 PM

"... NDP candidate Marilyn Churley."

Those of you who like to follow the exploits of barking-mad socialists might like to know this little tidbit about Marilyn Churley.

In the last Ontario provincial election, the NDP did not receive enough votes to be granted official party status. Therefore whenever called upon in the legislature, the few remaining members were referred to as independents.

Ms. Churley, still on the case, decided to legally change her name to Marilyn Churley-NDP, so that the leaden sounding acronym “NDP” would still echo the halls of Queen’s Park.

I am not making this up.

To the best of my knowledge this is still her legal name.

Ps Her stripper daughter was once featured in a documentary about troubled teens. Marilyn was filmed in shadow, but many knew that it was her.

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at January 18, 2006 3:00 PM

1. I pay NOTHING for my Blogspot site. No fee.
2. The purpose of personal blog sites, like mine, is to discuss and share information of personal interest.
3. Last time I checked, Canada is not (yet) engaged in Internet censorship like the People's Republic of China.
4. I don't earn a dime for my blogging. Most of the time, as I'm usually busy with well-compensated employment, I don't keep my blog up-to-date.
5. Last time I checked, Canada was a nation committed to freedom of speech (more than most nations, anyway).
6. The real joy of blogging about the Canadian election has been less about what I say, and more about what I have learned from Canadians and from other bloggers. It's fair to say I used to be involved in local (Washington state) politics and am on sabbatical for the time being. The strange 2004 gubernatorial election, decided on the basis of bizarre election administration, left a very bad taste in the mouth.
7. The more I've studied the election and talked with other bloggers and politically-active folks in the Seattle area, the more I realize how few Americans are aware of Canada's politics. The social isolation between our nations has grown much wider over the past 15 years - and I don't think this is a healthy thing for either nation.

America and Canada are neighbors, not the same nation. However, the declining level of person-to-person interaction between Americans and Canadians over the past 15 years - in tourism, college & university students, and skilled workers temporarily working and living in the other country - is not a good thing.

That's the main reason I blog about Canada and complex Canada-US relationship.

Posted by: SpaceNeedleBoy at January 18, 2006 3:01 PM

Well... the CBC is finally reporting the Buzz thang. Under the headline "Bloc opposition better than Tory government: Hargrove"

Posted by: MolarMauler at January 18, 2006 3:03 PM

Oh, I wish Buzzy would come campaign in Ralphie's Wascana riding.

Posted by: Slicer at January 18, 2006 3:18 PM

Wait... I thought CTV said Ralph's riding was in S'Toon? :-P

Posted by: Ian H. at January 18, 2006 3:24 PM

Adler featuring Bourque on radio re: Hargrove's nonensical blather. "Huge mess for Paul Martin." "This is just a calamity for the Liberal Party of Canada." "If you were a history professor or a political professor and you wanted to pin point one of the greatest terrible political campaigns of all time, this has got to be it."

Posted by: saskfishtales at January 18, 2006 3:24 PM

Buzzsaw=Child pornography.


Posted by: Mark Collins at January 18, 2006 3:25 PM

Bourque on Adler: Says there's a retrenching in the polling numbers saying Tories have lost some gas while some undecideds are moving toward the Libs/NDP.

Bourque admits he's a Liberal. Yet, goes on to say Martin is looking deflated until he is in the camera's eye on stage. Then, PM puffs himself up and puts on a show.

Back to me: Although he's a Liberal, it appears Bourque's integrity in his analysis is far more important than his political stripe. I have to respect that and what he does in the media.

Posted by: saskfishtales at January 18, 2006 3:30 PM

Lenin once said that capitalists would sell you the rope to hang them with (or something along those lines.)

In the case of the Liberals, they provided their own rope.


Posted by: Warwick at January 18, 2006 3:32 PM



Posted by: Colin at January 18, 2006 3:33 PM

I’m not a member of NCC. But It’s a bit rich for Buzz to call NCC a “secret society.” -- I bet he was responding to my report posted yesterday, in which I defined the term “people in the loop” as Liberals insiders and their MSM minions, in the context of a murder cover-up.

You can not save Martin, Buzz!

Posted by: Jim Yu at January 18, 2006 3:35 PM

Let Hargrove, Martin and Layton spew their rhetoric. Has anyone else noticed it? That slow but sure shift in the media saying the unthinkable only a week ago out of concern for it happening? Conservative Majority is not only in the realm of possibility, but it appears the mainstream media is starting to get cosy with the prospects of the new PM Harper and with Harper himself.

Posted by: saskfishtales at January 18, 2006 3:43 PM

I’m a long time lurker, but this is my first time posting. Just couldn’t let this one slip!

Photo caption Freudian slip on CTV site:

Canadian Auto Workers President Buzz Hargrove joints Paul Martin at a campaign event in southwestern Ontario on Wednesday.

Provides a little insight into what ol’ Buzz must have been smoking &/or the value being placed in his statement by the writer…

Posted by: BB at January 18, 2006 3:46 PM

"Buzz Hargrove joints Paul Martin"

Perfect. Cheech and Chong watch the Liberal Campaign go "Up In Smoke" while bloggers add lighter fluid to blaze. Legal activists demand fuel industry Royal Commission.

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at January 18, 2006 3:59 PM

Let's not forget that the Quebec wing of the CAW also came out as endorsing the Bloc in this election...they even gave Duceppe a much better jacket than Buzz gave Big Paulie.

You know, if my union leader had just cost the membership 20,000 jobs through his shortsighted grandstanding, I probably wouldn't be listening to him about who I should vote for.

Posted by: Reluctant Ninja at January 18, 2006 4:00 PM

“ The wealth of Alberta everybody recognizes is much greater than it is anywhere in Canada. Those principles that he is brought up with and believes in coming out of there don’t sit well with the rest of Canada.”

I just heard a clip of HARGROVE'S speech and I would like to know if there's an audio clip where I can replay it. Anyone know? Anyone hear it? I see the words now, in print, BUT... HOW IT SOUNDED was; Albertans and Harper are selfish individualists who have too much money and aren't real Canadians they are seperatists. I'm paraphrasing but that was the tone.

I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt but on second thought this Toronto Star Story must not be verbatim. I clearly heard Hargrove call Harper an individualist and other similair terms I do not see in this story.

The clip I heard, of Buzz speaking, was on Corus - Edmonton. I guess I can go to archives but think I have to wait until after midnight.

Posted by: Cheri at January 18, 2006 4:27 PM

Doc, I've got this buzzing in my ears. Doc: Yes, Paul. It's saying: I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

Martin, are you deaf? Buzz told the Liberals to vote Bloc, Blockhead. Conclusion: Martin & Hargrove are messes; say, goodnight, Paul. >>>>

Even after Hargrove’s comments, Martin was still sticking with the controversial union leader.

“Buzz Hargrove plays a very important role in this country,” Martin told reporters.

“When Buzz Hargrove comes here with some of his other union leaders and essentially says to the progressive forces — to NDP voters — . . . `I believe that all of these (Liberal) people should be elected,’ that is a very powerful statement.” >

Posted by: maz2 at January 18, 2006 4:32 PM

Martin and Hargrove are playing a dangerous game here but it's what we've come to expect from Martin and his do and say anything approach to hold on to power. To demonize Alberta once again and actively promote votes for the separatists is shameful. Sorry, it's beyond shameful. I'm thoroughly disgusted with these latest antics. Just when you think Martin can't possibly crawl any lower into the gutter, he does this.

Sure, Martin go ahead and try and win this election. You will find that if you do, you won't have a country left to govern. Do you think Quebec will stick around if you get re-elected? Do you think that Albertans will take any more of your insults? Do you think Americans will ever again take you seriously? Do you think you can count on the unequivocal support of the military which a government should have?

We have had quite enough of you, Mr. Martin! You are a little, little man. Begone with you!

Posted by: TimR at January 18, 2006 4:38 PM

Have we been told what promise Paul made to Buzz to secure his endorsemnt?

Posted by: JohnLang at January 18, 2006 4:50 PM

TimR; while Martin is the enemy here, he can't keep his story/game plans straight, Buzz is the one who goofed. As an Albertan (I'm guessing you are too?) I am deeply offended that this socialist twit would say Albertans don't sit well with the rest of the Country. Well this is MY country, I pay the same (possibly more) taxes as the average Canadian and I am not welcome in my own country? I have not an equal right to speak? My vote is not equal? I have news for Canadians like Buzz, ... oh forget it! Why bother! You will get our message LOUD AND CLEAR on January 23rd.

Actually, this is ALMOST laughable, firstly Martin has called Harper un-patriotic repeatedly over the years and NOW; BUZZ and Martin are saying if you're going to vote for Seperatists it would be better to vote for Quebec seperatists rather than the un-known seperatists? Have I got that about right? You are not Canadian unless you are A: Liberal or B: NDP or C: BLoq or D: Anything BUT Albertan

Posted by: Cheri at January 18, 2006 5:02 PM

Here's the link to the CBC contact page, tell them what you think. I for one would like to see the CBC sold off to the private sector, whole or in pieces, it doesn't really matter. The government shouldn't have a taxpayer funded propaganda apparatus, its time for change.

Posted by: Bruce Randall at January 18, 2006 5:24 PM

interesting how paulie is backtracking and apologigising for the buzzards comments. i guess buzzard is still trying to retract both feet out pick.

Posted by: spike at January 18, 2006 5:28 PM

"You are a little, little man."

He is a lilliputan. Swift was right.

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at January 18, 2006 5:37 PM

Buzz Martin is in denial. Says the devil made him do it. >>>>

Hargrove Denies He Told Quebecers to Vote For Bloc
Melanie Adams
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:20 PM

Posted by: maz2 at January 18, 2006 5:40 PM

Bruce Randall,

Hear hear. Selling off CBC TV should be the first order of business if Harper wins a majority. The CBC has an irresolvable conflict of interest. The CBC benefits from Big Spending leftist governments. It is in its pecuniary interest to be against conservative governments.

The ethical impropriety of receiving tax dollars from all Canadians while favouring the views of leftist taxpayers in preference to conservative taxpayers is one the CBC has never addressed.

For all of its self-promotion as the vaunted, ultimate word on everything Canadian the CBC is quite dense.

Posted by: Terry Gain at January 18, 2006 5:50 PM

Mississaugua Matt, I have read some pretty depraved things written by you whingers over the past few months that I've been paying attention.

But your post today on Marilyn Churley and her troubled daughter managed to reach even lower lows that I had previously thought possible.

You are one disgusting creep.

Posted by: arthurdecco at January 18, 2006 6:22 PM


I think Matt is just pointing out the obvious nutters that are taking up space on the ballot.

Buzz is a nutter too, even Martin is taken back by his latest.

Posted by: cal2 at January 18, 2006 6:32 PM

While I believe Mr Martin's ill-considered notwithstanding clause promise ensured Liberal defeat, it may turn out that Hargrove's comments ensure a Conservative majority. Does Hargrove actually believe that it is good for Canada for Quebecers to vote for the Bloc over the Tories? Devolution of powers is the key to restoring the health of our federation; returning provincial powers usurped, first by Trudeau and accelerated under Chretien, placed unity at great risk, not just in Quebec. How Hargrove calculates the restoration of federalism means the breakup of Canada is beyond the pale. I can only conclude his Canada is a centralized polity with power residing with a few power brokers in the PMO, who most certainly are not Conservatives (in his world, westerners). Hargrove has revealed himself to be an elitist. How will the rank and file at the CAW like this one? Layton/NDP in particular has to jump all over this one; but they will have to go after one of their own to get results (seats). I believe this reticence is behind the poor results the NDP are heading for. This is their chance to change their approach and attack the Liberals where they live, downtown Toronto. Meanwhile Harper is spelling relief H-A-R-G-R-O-V-E.

Posted by: Phil at January 18, 2006 6:33 PM

A short essay; well written; thoughtful. Recommended reading/saving. >>>>

Whither the Left?
Author: "Bugs"
In reply to: that badly? 's message, "Will NDP do" on 08:34:52 01/18/06 Wed
I don't think so. I read the article without seeing it as attacking either the Liberals or the NDP. Their larger social strategy IS in tatters. Neither the Liberals nor the NDP know what to do about separatism, for instance. Do they? Just more of the same?

The NDP used to be a socialist party, going back to the class approach to politics that was disciplined, scholarly, and moral. That's the tradition where everything wonderful in its heritage lies. The yoeman farmers, doing things together to overcome their problems. The industrial workman, trying to get a fair shake from his employer.

Laxer's as much nationalist as social democrat, really. He's dismissed the NDP - I don't know why. But he is right about the election. The fundamental question, the meta-question, so to speak, is this: What is the role of the state to be?

Canada has been, in many ways, the creation of the government. The Conservative government, for instance, was used to bring electrification to Ontario. Essentially, they underwrote the venture, but ran it like an independent corporation. Ontario was one of the first jurisdictions in the world to begin electrifying. CBC, atomic energy, whatever, it has been the same. But you can see a trend. It has become less and less successful as we come to the present.

Government financing means a loss of financial controls. Costs of labour within the state sector are now so much higher than the private sector that it makes most service more expensive than private market deivery. Day care, for instance, costs somebody $40+ per day, per kid. That would be $800 a month, per kid. The whole thing is ONLY desireable if is payed for by other people! Isn't that the truth?

Socialism has become a system designed to tap off the energy of the productive, for purposes that are ... dubious? In individual cases, there might be a plausible possibility of good ensuing ... but the cost is kept out of the picture, normally. In aggregate, this has to be looked at very carefully because the total cost becomes quite a weight, and even creates other 'client groups' -- requiring subsidies delivered through politics.

The basis for natural collaboration, for instance, is for the federal government to set up some national 'standards', including 'portability' and all of that ... and to turn it over to the provinces, along with a tax formula that goes automatically to the provinces on some regular basis. Dithers, for instance, gave Toronto 5 cents a litre out of gas tax to deal with its traffic/TTC problems.

The real problems with medicare, now, is that it achieves financial control through bottlenecks. Politicizing the process will only end up moving the bottlenecks. The bottlenecks are a form of unacknowledged rationing. It seems to me unfair not to allow private arrangements to be made as a 'partial solution' to these bottlenecks. But that's me. The point is that this can be settled at a provincial level more validly, at a level that makes sense.

Back to the point. Once a process of decentralization starts, particularly if it produces benefits, momentum will develop. It won't go all the way of course, but I can see a big improvement in the accountability of government in it. And in the quality of services it delivers. Education. What the federal input? And so on. Manpower? That, definitely, could be better managed provincially.

The NDP and the Liberals are on the pro-state side. What arguments do they have, now that the government is so expensive, and so inefficient? Not only that, but Keynesian economics don't seem to work anymore. The central state seems passe. How can they be defended? I don't say they can't, but the NDP is back with the anti-corporatists and anti-globalists, the whole UN crowd, whom themselves are one-world government people ... the scariest form of globalism of all.

Every day discredits this more. Certainly, there is no ennobling purpose, anymore, merely one more frantic appeal to, now, do something, or else children will die ... when, in fact, all their efforts end up adding to the Mercedes collection of the colonel. The real world is too complicated for these adolescent policies. >>> more

Posted by: maz2 at January 18, 2006 6:58 PM

David Suzuki is a journalist? The CBC has journalistic standards? Sheesh a bob, next someone is going to tell me the Liberanos will form a majority on Monday. Something else from the fiction is fact department.

Posted by: DaDuck at January 18, 2006 8:57 PM

Harpers Alberta values that he was "brought up with"? Has anybody told Buzz that Harper was born and raised in Ontario?

Posted by: TJ at January 18, 2006 9:34 PM

Buzz just doesn't get it. Yes, Alberta has money. Albertans buy lots of vehicles. (Business and Personal). If my values don't measure up to Buzz and his member's standards then maybe I should see if I fit in better with Korea. I hear Hyundai is building a good product nowdays.


Posted by: Bill at January 18, 2006 11:19 PM

Art Decco. Marilyn C. really did change her name legally. And if her daughter is a stripper, so what? It's a great way to put yourself through school. I only wish I could have been a stripper but I've got all the wrong parts...

Posted by: Brian M. at January 18, 2006 11:50 PM

The most interesting is Martins response:

Anything he may have said about Mr. Harper in that area has been corrected … I have large differences with Stephen Harper but I have never doubted his patriotism.

Hmm...remember this?

We would see him [Mr. Harper] and [Bloc leader] Gilles Duceppe, if they get enough seats, working together to dismantle this country that all of us are so proud of.”

Posted by: Ownshook at January 19, 2006 12:21 AM

Iron Lady.... Brilliant!! ROFLMFARO gawd ur SOH is wicked! :~P

Posted by: Snookie at January 20, 2006 3:50 AM