Yesterday at about 11 AM I received a call at home from Calgary Herald columnist Don Braid. He wished to interview me along with a few other Liberals about Michael Ignatieff becoming the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. I have known Don for almost thirty years and have followed his career as a reporter and columnist for all of that time. Don is a professional. He has interviewed me many times, always with accuracy and fairness. He is a credit to his profession.
We spoke for the better part of a half hour on the impact of Ignatieff’s elevation to the party leadership. I voiced my agreement that with the coming of Ignatieff longstanding divisions within the party were healed and that it would quickly revitalize itself from Victoria to St. John’s. I also opined that the coming of Ignatieff meant that Harper’s days as Prime Minister and Conservative leader were now numbered.
Don’s excellent and objective piece on the Ignatieff succession appeared in this morning’s Herald. See: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=deab9564-c24e-4a71-b087-a5dd26faebec&p=1
My astonishment of course is that nowhere in Braid’s piece did my name appear. Was I really bad copy during the interview? Was it conducted too early in the morning? Did my erudite wit fail me? Why was I left on the Herald’s cutting-room floor? What about my crumbling self-esteem! Why was I excluded?
I have been a loyal and faithful subscriber to the paper all of my adult years, following in the footsteps of my family before me. Surely there has been no greater supporter and booster of the Herald’s excellent journalistic product over the years. Why, just look at some of my recent blogs, in which the Herald has played a front and center role:
THE CALGARY HERALD'S DISRESPECT FOR THE HISTORICAL RECORD http://darrylraymaker.blogspot.com/2008/07/calgary-heralds-disrespect-of.html
LICIA CORBELLA: ON BEING DEAF, DUMB AND ARROGANT AND A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLACK http://darrylraymaker.blogspot.com/2008/03/licia-corbella-on-being-deaf-dumb-and.html
MENDACITY OR IGNORANCE ?
http://darrylraymaker.blogspot.com/2008/07/mendacity-or-ignorance.html
SACHA TRUDEAU: CALLING IT AS HE SEES IT http://darrylraymaker.blogspot.com/2008/08/sacha-trudeau-calling-it-as-he-sees-it.html
THE CALGARY HERALD AND THE ART OF THE WHOPPER http://darrylraymaker.blogspot.com/2008/09/calgary-herald-and-art-of-whopper.html
THE VERDICT ON STEPHEN LEDREW
http://darrylraymaker.blogspot.com/2008/09/verdict-on-stephen-ledrew.html
HARPER'S MINORITY GOVERNMENT: REMEMBER JOE CLARK http://darrylraymaker.blogspot.com/2008/10/harpers-minority-government-remember.html
MORE TWADDLE FROM THE CALGARY HERALD: HARPER, OBAMA TWO PEAS IN A POD!!!!???? http://darrylraymaker.blogspot.com/2008/11/more-twaddle-from-calgary-herald-harper.html
"DOING A DION:" RECOGNIZING THE AUTOCRAT AND STOPPING HIM IN HIS TRACKS
http://darrylraymaker.blogspot.com/2008/12/doing-dion-recognizing-autocrat-and.html
Alas, did Braid conclude that I was not up to my usual copy standards? Or do the Herald’s editors believe that “he who lives by the pen, shall die by the pen - or scissors?” Probably I shall never know.
But I do recommend the above blogs to those readers who wish to confirm my continued admiration for that great publication.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
No, I'd daresay that mr Braid was smart enough to recognize your comments as sheer twaddle.
Interrupting the party's leadership process in order to coronate Michael Ignatieff as leader is going to magically heal all the divisions within the Liberal party? How precisely does this work?
If anything, interrupting the leadership process actually handcuffs the process of renewal.
The Liberal party needs a leader that reflects renewed values and principles. It doesn't need renewed values and principles that it can simply adapt to a new leader.
That is what will heal the party's divisions. Not a new leader that has already divided the Liberal party from the moment that he was recruited into it.
Ross, you worm! Instead of following me around, why don't you do something useful, like, say, your homework. Conservatives are short on math, for example. They cannot do percentages and don't know the difference between a majority and a minority. That deficiency has got them into a helluva lot of trouble over the years. You should always study arithmatic.
And from one political aficionado (you might have trouble with that word Rossco) to another, the guy who healed the divisions in the Liberal Party - even the divisions between the opposition parties - is your pal Herr Harper!
And even a dummy like you can figure out how that worked!
Grits have never been light on principle. Within a couple of days or hours, your guy Harper is going to show how light he is on principle when he stacks the Senate with all of his neocon pals without going through an election process.
You're on your way out bucko! Have fun feeding at the Harper carcass, because your type will always be there.
Wow lololo
Iggy has to use your talent for talks strait talks...
I am always here to get my knowledge upped... and I always leave stronger... thanks.
You are very Good To line up the facts and get the picture Clear.
marta
Right. Grits have never been light on principle.
Like the way they insist they value human rights while Jean Chretien couldn't even bring himself to utter the words to Ziang Zemin.
Like the way they insisted they wanted to fight climate change, then drug their feet on their own Kyoto Accord.
Like the way they've promised to wipe out child poverty in this country, political generation after political generation, then never delivered.
Like the way Darryl Raymaker claims that the party that cut billions of dollars to health care and education doesn't harbour any neoconservatives in their ranks.
The Liberal party: never light on "principles".
Rossco, you gormless worm,
1. the human rights bullshit rhetoric is precisely that. Better all governments keep their mouths shut about it when talking to the Chinese or most any other country, because people in glass houses, etc. etc. That goes for Harper too. His love affair with the Dalai Lama may warm the hearts of the rabid anti chinese neocons, but it doesn't do a goddamn thing either for Tibet or Canada's trade relations with China or anything else.
2.Kyoto was a goal. A statement of principle. So we couldn't meet the goal - so what, so long as we were working seriously to achieve it as early as possible. Your pal Herr Harper treats the whole climate change issue as a joke.
3. Grits have done more to attack poverty than any other political party in Canada's history. Poverty isn't even on Bush's pal Steve Harper's agenda.
4. Transfer payments to the provinces were cut as part of a budgetary measure to rid ourselves of deficit spending. You know it. I know it. Everyone knew it and most everyone approved it, and so stop trying to make it something different than it was. It was to get our financial house in order.
5. And now, bugger off!
"the human rights bullshit rhetoric is precisely that. Better all governments keep their mouths shut about it when talking to the Chinese or most any other country, because people in glass houses, etc. etc. That goes for Harper too. His love affair with the Dalai Lama may warm the hearts of the rabid anti chinese neocons, but it doesn't do a goddamn thing either for Tibet or Canada's trade relations with China or anything else."
So then do you really mean to suggest that anyone who criticizes China or advocates for a Free Tibet is a neoconservative?
That's an awfully peculiar definition of neoconservativism, and only confirms that you have no clue what that word means.
The people at Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch would probably be quite amused to learn that they're apparently neoconservatives.
"Kyoto was a goal. A statement of principle. So we couldn't meet the goal - so what, so long as we were working seriously to achieve it as early as possible. Your pal Herr Harper treats the whole climate change issue as a joke."
Your party signed the Accord, ratified it, then never made any effort to actually meet it.
There was no serious work on the Kyoto protocol. If there was, Canada's carbon emissions probably wouldn't have risen faster after ratification.
The Liberal party treated climate change like a political football it could use to score a cheap touchdown, then throw away when the game was over.
At least Stephen Harper was honest about how he stood on the issue. Your party wasn't.
"Grits have done more to attack poverty than any other political party in Canada's history. Poverty isn't even on Bush's pal Steve Harper's agenda."
You're forgetting about a lil' ol' party known as the NDP. They've done more to combat poverty than the Liberals have dared imagine.
Furthermore, Bush is out of office is just over a month. What are you going to lob as a vapid partisan grenade then?
"Transfer payments to the provinces were cut as part of a budgetary measure to rid ourselves of deficit spending. You know it. I know it. Everyone knew it and most everyone approved it, and so stop trying to make it something different than it was. It was to get our financial house in order."
If you knew that neoconservatism actually is -- this is the Kristolian strain I'm referring to -- you'd understand how entirely meaningless that entire statement really is.
Furthermore, you can say what you want. The Liberal party cut billions of dollars to health care and education, yet still found all kinds of money to steal from the Canadian people (via the Sponsorship Program) or spend on its own pet projects (Jane Stewart's billion dollar boondoggle).
So you rant to your hearts content, fling as many insults in place of a logical argument as you like. It doesn't change the fact that Canadians are well aware of your party's record, and know full well -- despite the "noble" lies peddled by individuals such as yourself -- who exactly it is who will slash health care and education when they find it politically expedient to do so.
Regardless of what you evidently think, Canadians are not stupid.
"And now, bugger off!"
I don't think I will.
Puleeze Ross - you are wasting everybody's time including your own. Get lost. This is Au Revoir. Comprenez you dumb twit?
Why would I? I'm having a lot of fun here, responding logically to your irrational rants and watching you get angry about it.
It's almost kind of sad. Someone steps in here and points out the factual incoherence of your twaddle, and you accuse them of being a "Harperite".
Whereas the truth is very, very different:
You're just plain wrong, and every bit as bad as the individuals you claim to despise.
That has to be a tough reality to swallow at age 52.
Dear Ross;
You are outwitted. Do stop.
Clearly, you haven't been paying attention.
Thanks WriterWriter.
God, Darryl, you really are an obtuse one, aren't you?
OK. Try this on for size.
Still want to try and tell us all the divisions within the Liberal party are "healed"?
Your comment was twaddle, Darryl. That's why it didn't make the cut.
Sure the Liberals made mistakes, even really big ones, but at no time did they try to cripple political opposition like Harper did. Harper tried to subvert democracy, and that is the truly scary thing. Given many of his quotes from the past, along with his repeated behaviour since becoming PM, any clear-thinking, reasonable person would question Harper's character, and his political and personal motivations. He has made blatantly derogatory statements about Canada. When he says that we won't recognize Canada when he's done with it...what exactly does he have in mind, and more importantly, who is he serving?? I cannot believe he has Canada's best interests in mind. He lies so smoothly that I can only think of a cold-blooded snake when I see his face. When I hear his voice I feel slimed. He is so two-faced, manipulative and conniving, and lies and manipulates so blatantly that I cannot see how it is anything but pathological.
...and yet people worship him, as if his political moves make him some kind of hero dominating his opponent. Do such people have a grip on reality?! Can't they see how they are getting played by a reptile?
If people think the last Liberal government was so bad, how the hell is Harper making anything better? He actually incites division and hate between fellow countrymen for his own political gain. That is creepy and sick.
I wouldn't be surprized if someday we find out that Harper is something that metastasized off a larger blackness, or is even a tentacle reaching into Canada from somewhere else.
...whatever the case...I think Patrick Ross is either blind, stupid, or a shill.
Ah, right on Jimmy Boy! I agree 1000%! On both counts, Harper and his dense, dim-witted young shill/nuisance!
Our little exchange no doubt will cause the little worm to crawl out from under a rock to try to get the last word in. Pathetic little weasel that he is.
No, that will cause me to do what I've always done here at this blog: decisively defeat you.
First off -- There is nothing undemocratic about forcing political parties to raise their own funds.
Let's face it: if any party -- let alone one that seems to think that it's entitled to govern on a permanent basis, as the Liberal party does -- is unable to support itself through the activities of its supporters, one has to question its viability as a democratic movement.
Whether you're honest enough to admit it or not, it isn't Stephen Harper that's relied on the politics of division in this country: it's the Liberal party and their blatant fear-mongering tactics. Tactics that, meant to incite people to fear and hate Stephen Harper and the Conservative party, also by extension incite people to fear and hate the 35% of the country that makes up the so-called Conservative base.
You can whine and cry about Stephen Harper all you want. But the Conservative party has never run an ad suggesting that their political opponents would use the military to take control of the country.
The Liberal party did.
Anybody who tries to create a one-party state would send in the army to have his way with the people. Its happened before and it will happen again. Fortunately not in Canada, because your boy will be toast before long.
Let me put this to you as gently as one can, Darryl:
If only one part in Canada is capable of supporting itself through the activities of its members, then I'm sorry to say that we already have a one-party state.
Besides, Darryl: China is a one-party state, and you argued that we should pander to them. Apparently, you aren't bothered by one-party states at all.
In fact, if you could make Canada a Liberal one-party state you know full well you would.
Is it supposed to shock anyone to find that you're such a mindless hypocrite?
Ross, you are a danger to the country if you believe that. It is a principle of our system of Parliamentary Democracy that there is a government and an opposition.
You actually believe that the government can launch a surprise attack to take away funding of the opposition parties and if as a result they can't survive, so be it. You also believe in a far right philosophy as evidenced by your support of the current edition of the Conservatives. That, young fella, is a lethal combination of evil.
As far as China is concerned, I did not say that we should pander to them, I said that we should mind our own goddamn business and try to engage them as trading partners.
And don't call me a hypocrite, you weasel.
Don't think of it as me calling you a hypocrite. Think of it as me bringing to your attention that you are, in fact, a hypocrite.
You can call it what you like. I'm not the slightest bit concerned about fools like yourself who want to engage in the Straussian tactic of branding their opponents as "evil" (are you starting to comprehend the sheer irony yet, Darryl?) while trying so hard to overlook reality.
The reality of the matter is that these parties should be able to support themselves. If they can't, they have deeper problems within their own organizations. I don't see any reason why public finances should serve as a crutch to these organizations. There is none.
I'm not sure why it is that you think your political parties shouldn't have to fundraise -- read: work -- for their money. But if they can't raise a few million dollars from a support base that is, demographically, amongst the wealthiest in the country, that party has serious problems that public funding will not solve.
I'm not surprised that you can't understand this.
Just like you can't understand the abject hypocrisy of insisting that we should just "do our business" with an oppressive one-party state that is amongst the worst human rights abusers in the world while you continue to insist that Stephen Harper should be condemned for alleged efforts to build a one-party state.
For you, trade -- money -- is actually more important than democracy, more important than human rights. So much so that we should dare not even dream of criticizing a country that makes an absolute farce of these values if there are a few dollars to be made.
Suffice to say, Darryl, that I will not tolerate being lectured about "evil" by a hypocrite who clearly would have traded with Nazi Germany as opposed to fighting it, as we did.
Unshockingly, Darryl, it seems you don't really believe in Democracy. Nor do you believe in human rights.
To you, they're nothing more than rhetorical comments on which you can rage at a government you don't support yet somehow still dares to govern this country.
So I'll bring this to your attention one more time: you, Darryl Raymaker, are a hypocrite.
No, Darryl. I don't think I will.
All you had to do in order to avoid this was accept some criticism instead of flying off the handle and accusing anyone who dares disagree with you of all manners of offense.
You started this, Darryl. But understand fully that I will finish it.
Post a Comment