this blog has moved to a new address: daveberta.ca

Please update your RSS, bookmarks, and links to http://daveberta.ca.

Friday, May 19, 2006

harper should chill out.

From CTV:

Harper may snub annual press gallery dinner

Updated Thu. May. 18 2006 11:33 PM ET
David Akin, CTV News

Ottawa -- The prime minister may snub the annual Parliamentary Press Gallery dinner this fall, a move he's considering in order to register his displeasure with an ongoing disagreement his office has with Parliament Hill journalists over the way his press conferences ought to be conducted.

CTV News has learned that Stephen Harper plans to tell his caucus at a future meeting that he will not attend the dinner, to be held Nov. 25 at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, Que.

He will not insist that other caucus members boycott the Press Gallery dinner but many Conservative MPs and nearly all cabinet ministers are expected not to attend the dinner to show solidarity with their boss. Read le rest ici...

They must have removed his emotion chip when he moved into 24 Sussex...

(Props to nic for the newslink)

19 comments:

GritPatriot said...

HArper is an arrogant baby. People will see that soon and he will be turfed.

Steve V said...

If people want Harper to attend, just tell him that Bush attends his annual press dinner. I guarantee Harper will find the time.

Prairie Kid said...

It looks like Ignatieff won't attend either. This was in the Toronto Star today.

"Despite numerous requests, Ignatieff would not meet with reporters outside the Commons yesterday to discuss the vote."

But because he is a Liberal he proably has a good reason for his decision.

Sean Tisdall said...

Prairie Kid, What does that have to do with the press gallery DINNER?

I say, give Tracy Parsons Harper's place if he doesn't show

Emil Vargas said...

I think every PM we've had has been arrogant to a certain extent. However the media and Harper aren't getting along so it figures. And he's PM now instead of opposition leader. He doesn't have to convince people he's worthy to govern. The media area bucn of vultures who look for anything that appears weak and pounce on it. The flag debate was just stupid. What a waste of writing space.
I'm sure Iggy would be just as arrogant if he were in power. And the guy is phony as hell so I'll talk Harper over that clown any day.

michael in calgary said...

"And he's PM now instead of opposition leader. He doesn't have to convince people he's worthy to govern."

umm, yeah he does. He's an untested PM in a minority parliament. HE HAS TO CONVINCE THE PEOPLE HE'S WORTHY TO GOVERN.

Anonymous said...

what does he have to lose. Why does he have to be such a douchebag?

Is it too much for Canadians to ask for their leaders to lighten up a bit and not be stingy arrogant pricks? That's why I voted Conservative, but the way Harper and his crew are acting, there not getting my vote next time.

Shame.

Sean Tisdall said...

"I think every PM we've had has been arrogant to a certain extent."

Yes emil, but the last PM who was arrogant to this extent (skipping out on the press gallery dinner) did so in 1979. And we all know how well the people reacted to Pierre Trudeau in 1979.

Someone once asked Joe Clark, the only politician ever to defeat Trudeau, about why he was so lenient with the press. He pointed to a pulitzer prize on his wall that was awarded to his grandfather for standing up to the Aberhart Government's press censorship laws. A conservative respects institutions, like a healthy and free press. This prime minister does not.

Emil Vargas said...

Oh please. The press are like lions who have to be fed or they turn on you. Your use of histroical arguments does nothing to sway me. And remember Joe CLark was a loser. He's the example of what not to do when in power. He thought he had a majority and had a minority and lost the election following to Trudeau because he was arrogant!
Back to the press, they made such a big deal out of that flag lowering. And remember they commented on Harper's waistline. I mean, the press writes anything that can sell newspapers, including controversy. When Harper was opposition leader, the press wrote him off and the Toronto Liberal Star wrotes articles citing unnamed sources bashing Harper on his leadership (Gloria Galloway). Why should Harper suddenly have a cosy relationship with the press. The Globe had a front page story about how the death of Nichola Goddard overshadows the Afghan mission extension. That smells to me of trying to influence public opinion against the Afghan mission.
The truth is journalists are biased and will tear a PM a new one if they don't agree with him ideologically.
And remember Paul Martin used the same tactics in the last election. His press aide caled on reporters and would pick those who wouldn't ask him the wrong questions.

daveberta said...

Woah, I think both you and the PM need to lighten up a little, Emil.

All newsmedia have their biases, like Tory Canwest.

Sean Tisdall said...

Dave: Canwest is a PC chain?! Sweet!

Emil: "The Globe had a front page story about how the death of Nichola Goddard overshadows the Afghan mission extension. That smells to me of trying to influence public opinion against the Afghan mission."

Well, as Harper noted, he really felt no compulsion to actually be bound by parliament's decision, so why should it be news when the first female combat casualty ever, (I've got mixed feelings about that. Good for equality, worse for Ms Goddard, who is braver than I) occured in Afganistan? Nicola Goddard is bigger news than the result of the vote. However it is smaller news than the fact that the prime minister is using the house for only plebicitory means. That is truly inimical to the principles of parliamentary supremacy.

Furthermore, being in a Canada where Acid Rain is no longer a problem and in a world where South African Apartheid is a distant and painful memory, I should be loath to ever call the Right Honourable Charles Joseph Clark a loser. Really, is this how Conservatives bring dignity to office?

Anonymous said...

'A conservative respects institutions, like a healthy and free press. This prime minister does not.'
Sean, are you suggesting that Harper is not a true conservative? That he is just a right wing wacko? oh, wait a minute. he was always a canadian reform alliance person (crap). he just changed the party name to disguise his views. and yes, tracy should take his place, although he was pretty funny last year with the grewal and mccallum bit so he will be strangely missed.

Sean Tisdall said...

Well, yes, anony, I am suggesting that conservative and right wing are not the same thing. Mention this to a Conservative, or JJ McCullough who is a Conservative in denial and they'll call David Orchard a socialist. I shouldn't blame them as it's the only card they've got left in the deck now, but still, I for one am tired of the socialist red baiting that occurs whenever classical (or Red Tory) conservatives enter into debate.

Despair not at the press gallery dinner, for Tracy will have Jim Love's help. She'll be way funnier.

Emil Vargas said...

Hey Sean Tisdell, under democracy we can call our leaders anything we want without being put in jail. There's another great thing about living in Canada huh? And Joe Clark was PM before I was born. I never even knew he was PM till my dad told me in like 2000. Remember the Liberals approved the Afghan mission in cabinet. Harper held a vote to extend it till 2009 so you gotta give him credit there. Its just the left-wingers who once there's casualites, they get weak knees and want to pull out, not even remembering why we're there.

Sean Tisdall said...

1. My name with it's proper spelling is directly above your comment... man.

2. Brian Mulroney's lawyers might have a thing or two to say about that sentence... but yes. You most definitely can call Joe Clark a loser. And I most definitely can call you a disingenuous pillock in response.

3. Your ignorance of your own history casts new light on the fervour with which you hold your convictions.

4. I don't gotta give Harper Credit for holding a vote whose outcome he had no intention of respecting. He did worse than ignore parliament when he declared that he may well ignore parliament's verdict. He castrated the House of Commons!

5. I was against that war from the beginning. It was a violation of national soverignty tantamount to the Austrian invasion of Serbia in '18. Casualties were inconsequential. Why are we there anyway? Intelligence reports put Osama in northern Pakistan at the time. 9/11 did not invalidate international law. If anything it created an increased importance that it be maintained and respected.

Emil Vargas said...

Sorry I mispelled your name Sean, like it really matters anyway u dork. Now I know why you left wing pacifists should never even run a household. How can you say we shouldn't be in Afghanistan? 3000 people died in the WTC attacks in 2001 including people from 70 different countries. And in the UN, countries have a right to defend themselvews if they are attacked. Of course I'm sure you in your arrogant wisdom probabaly overlooked that part. No one knows where Osama is now but he was in Afghan back in 2001. The country was being run by terrorist sympathizers who harbored Al Quieda. And the country was liberated and now women can go to school and vote.
You know, isn't that what the extreme left stands for? Women's rights and human rights. Apparently not if it means blood has to be shed. It just goes to show your foreign policy is one where we go around the world sprinkling fairy dust and then people get along. You NDPers only care about womens rights when it comes to voting time and its politcially convenient. Then you whine and complain in the debates how we need more women in Parliament to make it more civil. What a joke!
We're in Afghanistan so that country doesn't fall prey to terrorists again and has an oppressive regime like before. Of course you don't care about that apparently. You only care about your Kyoto photo-op pretending you are doing things to make the world a better place.

Sean Tisdall said...

"How can you say we shouldn't be in Afghanistan? 3000 people died in the WTC attacks in 2001 including people from 70 different countries."

I knew you'd say that.

"The country was being run by terrorist sympathizers who harbored Al Quieda."

They were attacked by Al QAIDA, a non state actor. It is argued that the Afgani Government gave aid to Al Qaida by turning a blind eye to tiehr activities. By this logic the United Kingdom was well within its rights to invade the United States at any time between the Easter Rising and the Good Friday accord.

"And in the UN, countries have a right to defend themselvews if they are attacked. Of course I'm sure you in your arrogant wisdom probabaly overlooked that part."

No, the US had a right to defend itself against Al Qaida, a non-state actor. However they do not have the right to attack a government that is marginally friendly to that non-state actor.

"You know, isn't that what the extreme left stands for? Women's rights and human rights. Apparently not if it means blood has to be shed."

I have never seen human rights as a legitimate arguement for interfering in the domestic affairs of another nation. If I had, I should be clamouring for the similtaneous invasion of China, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Disputed areas in Israel, Zimbabue, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Libya, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and the Alberta Legislature.

I don't know what the extreme left wants, but as a classical conservative I want a preservation of the rule of law and consistency in governmental and intergovernmental affairs. Thanks for letting me know that the full spectrum goes from Tom Flannigan to John Crosbie... I now realise that the treaty of Westfalia was written by socialist revolutionaries...

"You NDPers only care about womens rights when it comes to voting time and its politcially convenient. Then you whine and complain in the debates how we need more women in Parliament to make it more civil."

Wow, we agree the NDP's decent into gender essentialism is baffling, and to some extent disgusting. But I'm saddened that you haven't read my blog. I'm not an NDP'er. I RAN for the PC Party.

"We're in Afghanistan so that country doesn't fall prey to terrorists again and has an oppressive regime like before. Of course you don't care about that apparently. You only care about your Kyoto photo-op pretending you are doing things to make the world a better place."

Again, becoming the world's vigilante holds little attraction for a conservative such as myself. And Kyoto? Off topic dude. But to wade into that debate as well, I support any program that makes sure the government moves like hell to get newer sources of energy in place. That's going to be the only way that North America will have energy security.

I don't really care about Canada's contribution to carbon dioxide emissions, It's just flat out better for the Canadian Economy to get on board with a Carbon Neutral economy, assuming we realise that the only way to do that is with renewable energy mega projects.

So to conclude: Don't bring a spoon to a crun fight. (Triple reference for the kiddies there.)

Emil Vargas said...

Well I am sorry if I believed you to be a Jackie Layton guy. Thats a major insult in my book but you had the exact arguments of Jackie Laytons out there. Of course, you will remember back in 2001 George Bush gave the Taliban government 60 days I beieve to give up Bin Laden or they would be attacked, something that I thought was being wayyyyyyy too nice and allowed Bin Laden to get away. They refused of course unless the U.S. made some concessions so the U.S. didn't just walk in on September 12, 2001.
I didn't read your blog and recommend you don't waste your time running for a party that merged with the Alliance and now doens't exist, unless your running at the provincial level. Its like me running for the Reform party. I will check out your blog when I have more time, however I don't agree with you on almost anything. You must be a breed of conservative that is all but extinct.

Sean Tisdall said...

"Of course, you will remember back in 2001 George Bush gave the Taliban government 60 days I beieve to give up Bin Laden or they would be attacked, something that I thought was being wayyyyyyy too nice and allowed Bin Laden to get away. They refused of course unless the U.S. made some concessions so the U.S. didn't just walk in on September 12, 2001."

They didn't give up Bin Ladin, because it wasn't in their power to do so. Hence my comparison to the Austrian invasion of Serbia in '14 not '18 (my mistake)

Also the PC Party is Canada's 7th party currently. Movin' on up baby!