The Name Game: Talk About the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

I just read an article by former Reform Party, Alliance Party, Conservative Reform Alliance Party and later Conservative Party MP, Monte Solberg.

In it he is discussing the 'new' being removed from the New Democratic Party's name and states that "Name change won't help group that's not new" and leaves the "impression that the NDP desperately want to be a branch plant of the Democratic Party of the United States of America".

Hello???!!! How many name changes did your party adopt before successfully concealing the fact that they were a 'branch plant of the Republican Party of the United States of America'? What's that they say about people in glass houses?

I'm not thrilled with Jack Layton myself these days, but c'mon.

Dippers dippy idea
Name change won't help group that's not new, democratic or a party
By MONTE SOLBERG
Sun Media
August 13, 2009

So, the New Democratic Party is considering a name change. Good.
Organizations that have hung around for decades don't usually get away with calling themselves "new," except in a relative way.

For instance New England will always be much newer than England, so it still works.

When I think of the New Democratic Party really the only new that fits is the "pneu" you find in the word pneumonia, as in gravely ill and barely breathing.

All of this is far more complicated than it sounds. Just dropping the "new" leaves us with the Democratic Party of Canada.

This could leave the unfortunate impression that the NDP desperately want to be a branch plant of the Democratic Party of the United States of America.

In fact it might be seen as the NDP being so excited about the Obama presidency that they've even signed onto his Buy America policy.

Either way it could cramp their style when they inevitably, and I'm sure reluctantly, attack everyone else for being too pro-American.

If they dropped "democratic" from their name I doubt it would change any one's perception of who they are because they've never been particularly democratic. Actually if the NDP ever did tap the wisdom of a large and diverse group of Canadians to help them chart the way forward they would have long ago ceased to be the very strange, stunted and socialistic NDP of today, with their tiny sliver of seats.

Most importantly, if the concept of truth in advertising has any meaning at all for our brothers and sisters in the NDP, the one word they must discard from their name is "party."

If there was ever an organization whose entire demeanour was at odds with the fun and merriment of a party it is the NDP. (And the Conservatives are a barrel of laughs)

To be certain there a few among their number who have figured out that they should, as G.K. Chesterton would say, take their issues seriously while taking themselves lightly.

Unfortunately these happy few are vastly outnumbered by the sad and sour many. If it is a party, it is a pity party. Either way, it is false advertising.

No matter what it is called, the bleak outlook that permeates the horrible grinding gears of the present day NDP is so entirely spirit crushing that it deflates me to even write about it.

What I mean is the NDP often seem to be quite literally hopeless about the future of humankind. They have the odd habit of arguing for a more socially just future on the one hand while on the other hand convincing us the future is so grim that we will be lucky to not have to see it.

My advice to all parties is that the winning and winsome strategy is the strategy of gratitude. It is also the only strategy that is really grounded in reality.

It is the attitude of being so completely grateful for the world, its many flawed inhabitants, and our own good fortune in being able to experience it that we never cease in our striving to make it better.

Stockwell Day Exploits Veterans for Political Gain

Stockwell Day has proven time and again that he is not in politics for us. He is only it for himself.

But perhaps one of his worst acts (and that's saying something considering his record), was when he exploited Canada's veterans for political gain.

Not the first or last to do it, but the way it was done raised the ire of these brave men and women who deserve better.

You might wonder why I would bring this up now, but considering the fact that the Conservatives are mining Michael Ignatieff's writings and videos from decades ago, I thought I'd do a little prospecting myself.

These stories reveal a pattern, and took place not while Day was a private citizen, but when he was an elected official.

McDonough has company on home turf
November 11, 2000
By HEATHER SCOFFIELD
Globe and Mail

Halifax — Stockwell Day and Alexa McDonough spent an awkward Remembrance Day together on Saturday, after the Canadian Alliance leader invited himself into the NDP leader's home turf for the elaborate memorial ceremony in this historic port city.

Ms. McDonough has laid a wreath in the Halifax ceremonies before, and so organizers were pleased to have her again this year. But the participation of a second political leader was unprecedented, and for many in the audience of about 2000, also unwelcome.

"He's just looking for votes. I think it's wrong," said Jerry Blumenthal, a local councillor.

"I'm not impressed with Stockwell," added 78-year-old Percy Lambert, a veteran of the Second World War.

While some of the ceremony participants said they didn't mind Mr. Day joining in, and Ms. McDonough said she had no problem with it, many others in the audience or who laid wreaths said Mr. Day was "opportunistic" and "inappropriate."

Ms. McDonough said she would not campaign today out of respect for the veterans, but she did attend several military events anyway, and spoke out about the need for the Liberals to better recognize and compensate aboriginal veterans.

Behind the scenes, NDP staff were seething at having their leader share a stage with a rival. However, throughout the ceremony, Mr. Day was hidden by the war memorial, and the cameras could only get a clear shot of Ms. McDonough.

Halifax regularly has one of the biggest Remembrance Day ceremonies in Canada. With its history of shipping soldiers off to war from the port, and with the Department of National Defence one of the largest employers in the province of Nova Scotia, the day is widely observed here.

"It through a loop into us when we first heard they were both coming," said master of ceremonies Tom Waters, a navy commander. Mr. Day's staff called to ask if he could attend the ceremony three days in advance, Commander Waters said.

"He just said he wanted to be in a service, a Remembrance Day service.... It was a request that he made."

Organizers told Mr. Day's camp that they would accommodate him, but warned him to keep his political agenda out of sight.

And yet:

Legion not impressed with Stockwell Day
November 14, 2000
CBC News

Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day received a luke warm welcome at a Dartmouth legion Saturday.

Legion members say they were upset reporters and television cameras followed Day as he mingled with veterans.

Day later apologized to the legion, insisting he didn't know the media would accompany him.
New Democrat officials were also upset by Day's last minute decision to lay a wreath at the same memorial as party leader Alexa McDonough.

The party claimed Day was attempting to steal the spotlight from McDonough in her home town.

All five federalist party leaders laid wreaths at Remembrance Day ceremonies honouring Canada's fallen war heroes Saturday.

Dirty politics. Ms McDonough showed class while Day revealed he had none. No wonder his own party gave him the boot.

A fundraiser, a Lawsuit and a Questionable Contribution

When the Alberta Government sprang for a lawsuit against Stockwell Day, then a member of the provincial legislature, the public was outraged.

$800,000.00 for a case that could have been settled for about $70,000.00 if Mr. Day hadn't been so damned obstinate.

Then again, they felt; why should they foot the bill at all? Just because he signed the letter to the editor that got him into hot water, as a member of the legislature, it was a personal assault not sanctioned by the government at all.

But foot the bill they did, because the risk insurance they had to settle claims such as these, had a one million dollar deductible; so the entire burden fell to the Alberta taxpayers.

However, it was what took place immediately after that brought into question the ethics of Stockwell Day and the Alliance Party of Canada (Day was now that Party's leader), and paints a much larger picture of the turn of events.

The case was settled on December 22, 2000, the same date that a $ 70,000.00 contribution was received by the Alliance Party from Bennett Jones, who just happened to be the law firm receiving the windfall of about $ 400,000.00 in legal fees for defending the case.

With it was a note to to Gwyn Morgan, "I enclose herewith a Bennett Jones LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) cheque in the amount of $70,000. May I wish the Canadian Alliance the best of luck in the future.'' (Mr Morgan you may remember was the man that Stephen Harper tried to hire to head up the review board on public appointments as part of his bogus accountability act. He was rejected because of some racist remarks he had made, however, I think the issue should have been that Mr. Morgan, was 'a longtime fundraiser for the Reform/Alliance/Conservative parties'. How impartial would he be?)

The cheque was drawn on one of the firm's managed trust accounts and was signed by Lorne Britton and two other partners. (Britton didn't handle the case, but the two other names on the cheque have not been released). This was the largest single donation any law firm had ever made to a political party.

Also of concern is the revelation from the Alliance staff themselves when reporting the windfall: An enclosed note from the "fundraiser (Morgan) to the party's national office says his expectation of a big donation had come through, and 'Bennett Jones through, senior partner William Britton has made a substantial contribution to the Canadian Alliance." (Toronto Star, Feb. 21).

The Alliance Fund co-chair, Bruce McDonald, was also a partner in Bennett Jones, so you can see how the whole thing appears to be questionable.

Stockwell Day prolongs a case that everyone says should be settled, Bennett Jones receives almost $ 400,000.00 as a result of the prolonging, the Alliance Party of Canada receives a $ 70,000.00 political contribution from Bennett Jones.

All of this may be a coincidence, but I'm just saying. I mean why was Gwyn Morgan actively pursuing a large donation from a law firm currently representing the Alliance leader in a trial being paid for by taxpayers? If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat ....

Later under pressure, Mr. Day repaid about $ 40,000.00 of the trial costs. Chicken feed when compared to the $ 800,000.00 price tag.

Stockwell Day Digs in Heels to Put Foot in Mouth

When Stockwell Day wrote his letter to the editor in 1999, accusing a prominent local lawyer of engaging in child pornography, it was as part of an ongoing battle with the man in question.

Lorne Goddard was also a well respected school board trustee, responsible in part for providing sex education as part of the school curriculum.

Stockwell Day marched with other protesters to fight against this and was quoted as saying: "There is a growing body of literature suggesting that, as sex education becomes more comprehensive, there is a corresponding increase in sexual activity."

This is rather absurd. My own feeling is that it encourages safe sex. Sexual activity among teenagers happens whether they learn it at school or by doing what comes naturally.

However, as usual, Stockwell Day took matters too far, and others had to pay for his error in judgement. He's a very spiteful, vindictive little man, so when he saw an opportunity he jumped on it.

After learning that Mr. Goddard was representing a pedophile in a court case, he told the Red Deer Advocate that this was proof that he not only defended pedophilia, but also supported child pornography. What Mr. Day fails to understand is that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and without proper counsel the case could have been dismissed.

Naturally, Mr. Goddard immediately sued for libel and eventually won his case. What Day tried to keep from the public, was the fact that taxpayers footed the bill for much of the costs, in part because Day refused to admit he did anything wrong.


Critics demand judicial review of Day settlement
January 17, 2001
CBC News

Taxpayers in Alberta now know they're paying $792,064.40 to get Stockwell Day out of a defamation lawsuit and some of them are calling for a judicial review.

The money will come out of the province's risk management fund, a little-used government fund intended for use by provincial politicians who get into trouble in the course of their duties.

When the Alberta government released the terms of the settlement on Tuesday, many – including Premier Ralph Klein – expressed dismay that more than half the cost went to lawyers and other legal costs.

Alberta Justice Minister Dave Hancock conceded that if both sides had been able to reach a deal earlier, the price tag would have been lower.

"I would have preferred that earlier offers had been settled," he said.

A government lawyer sent Day a letter in October, urging him to settle the case before it went to trial. Another letter sent to Day in December threatened that the government would not pay the bill if he proceeded.

But Klein refused to consider allowing a judge to review the process, even though those calling for it include the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a staunch supporter of Day. (Jason Kenney was President and CEO and long time Day supporter)

Earlier offers would have allowed the entire matter to go away for about $70,000 – a $55,000 settlement plus about $12,000 in legal fees in July 1999.

Day's team rejected those offers.

Red Deer lawyer Lorne Goddard sued because a letter Day wrote to the Red Deer Advocate newspaper suggested Goddard might share the interests of his pedophile client, then on trial for child pornography offences. Goddard sued for libel, and asked for $600,000. The suit was settled just before Christmas in a secret deal.

The costs break down this way:
$474,000: Stockwell Day's legal costs
$246,000: Lorne Goddard's legal costs
$60,000: settlement for Lorne Goddard
$8,725: legal cost to adjourn trial
$2,900: legal cost to Alberta's justice department.

Day is allowed to use the taxpayer-funded pool of money for his defence because he was a sitting member of the Alberta legislature when he wrote the letter. The ethics commissioner ruled it would be inappropriate for Day to raise funds privately.

But some aren't buying the argument. They say Day was not acting as a representative of his Red Deer North riding when he wrote the letter.

The Liberal opposition says the comments were reckless and had nothing to do with Day's role in the legislature.

What made the matter worse was that the law firm who handled the case, apparently sent $70,000.00 of the $474,000.00 they billed taxpayers, to Stockwell Day's Alliance Party in the form of a political contribution.

Preston Manning in his book, Think Big, was again critical of Stockwell Day, calling it "an error in judgement, made worse by the prolonged and expensive effort to defend the indefensible with taxpayer's dollars." He also blasted Day for keeping the 70 grand.

Rob Merrifield Wins Award for Putting Women in Their Place

During the 2004 election campaign,

former Alliance, now Conservative, member Rob Merrifield dropped a bomb shell.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail, he said he thought mandatory counselling would be "valuable" for women who are considering terminating their pregnancies.

Mandatory??!!

At the time Stephen Harper was trying to distance himself from the abortion issue but clearly did not have control of his caucus, as many expressed their anti-abortion views publicly.

Harper drawn into hot-button abortion issue
CTV.ca News Staff

June 1, 2004

In an interview with CTV's Canada AM on Tuesday morning, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper was keen to downplay his health critic's comments.

Individuals are entitled to their opinion, Harper said, recognizing that pro-choice advocates oppose mandatory counselling as an unnecessary obstacle.

Views held by party members, he added, do not necessarily reflect Conservative policy.

"I've been very clear," he said. "A Conservative government in its first term led by me will not be bringing in abortion legislation or sponsoring an abortion referendum." (notice how carefully he said 'first term')

With the newly-merged Conservative Party desperate to make inroads with moderate voters, Harper was keen to minimize the potentially alienating effect of Merrifield's comments.

But Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan says the Opposition leader's attempt at damage control fell short. Blasting Merrifield for the "demeaning" nature of his remarks, the former health minister said Harper must fire him.

Merrifield's remarks may not have won him brownie points with his boss, but the Campaign Life Coalition sung his praises:

June 1, 2004

Conservative Merrifield Suggests Counseling Before Abortion;

Campaign Life Coalition Agrees

Conservative Health Critic Rob Merrifield, MP said yesterday that he supports third party counseling for women considering abortion. Campaign Life Coalition supports this suggestion because women have a “Right to Know” what is involved in a procedure that kills their baby and could adversely affect their body as well.

Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) said, “This would be a very positive initiative for women, because, as we know most women are not given full information about abortion before they go through the procedure. After they find out the truth they are burdened for the rest of their lives with what they have done.”

“Henry Morgentaler and others who claim to be pro-choice seem to be against women having a truly informed choice,” Hughes continued. “We rightly call the abortion lobby “pro-abortion,” because the only choice they offer is a dead baby.”

Karen Murawsky, Public Affairs Director of Campaign Life Coalition in Ottawa, said, “Of course it’s important to require third party counseling. In the absence of a law protecting the unborn, women need to realize that they are terminating the life of their child.

Campaign Life Coalition supports Rob Merrifield and any other politician who takes a stand in support of human life. Campaign Life Coalition does not endorse any single particular political party, but urges voters to support only those candidates who acknowledge the fundamental right to life of all human beings from the time of conception.

The following year CLC:

"presented Conservative MP Rob Merrifield with its Joseph P. Borowski Award, given annually to the politician who most prominently upholds life and family in the public square."

He also strongly opposed the 'Morning after' pill.

The abortion issue is not confined to just the Reform-Conservatives, but politicians from all parties have a problem with the legality of the practice. However, any politician who is pro-war, is not pro-life.

Since Rob Merrifield is actually drafting a report for the Canadian Council of Executives that says in part, Canada will support a new 'North American Defense' strategy, meaning we fight where the U.S. tells us fight, he has no credibility of any 'life' issues.

My Other Postings on Rob Merrifield:

1. Rob Merrifield and Jay Hill Stick it to Canadian Taxpayers

2. Conservative Rob Merrifield Loses His Golden Egg

3. Poll: Canadians Say Rob Merrifield Broke the Rules

4. Conservative Rob Merrifield Spouts Republican Rhetoric

5. Conservative Rob Merrifield Has Us Chokin' on the Cokin'

6. Rob Merrifield Lets Special Interests Trump National Interest