Stoffer stands up to "Senator Duffy" about Senate waste

The fact that Duffy starts off by yelling that Peter Stoffer is a "fake" and an actor is ludicrous and only makes Duffy look like he has no class whatsoever.

ha ha! Poor Duffy. All he could do was try to justify himself being a drain on the taxpayers. All those other non-elected and unaccountable senators are just overhead apparently. And he's so rude, too.

Duffy is a fucking lunatic.

He is everything that is wrong with politics and the Senate.

He spent 20 years shilling for the Conservatives under the guise of being an unbiased media personaility.  The day after he leaves the job he  is appointed to an unelected body and spends $44,000 of taxpayer money fundraising for the Conservatives.  He then shows up in a tuxedo and calls this man...

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/05/14/most-collegial-peter-stoffer/

... a fake.

I know Stoffer is not the most liked person on this board, but he is a good man and works hard for our Veterans.

Mike Duffy is a monumental asshole and he owes Peter an apology...now.

There will be serious blowback and this should really remind people in the by-election who and what they are voting for.

I thought Stoffer kept his cool pretty well considering that Duffy kept cutting him off with what amounted to jeers and sneers. What an arrogant bastard he is. Is this typical of the low lifes we pay to schill for corporations and banksters, and to organize corporate fundraisers for the two old line parties on the taxpayers' dime? Museum pieces in penguin suits all of them.

Does anyone remember Duffy as a reporter at Pierre Trudeau's funeral? 

I remember that Duffy was thoughtless enough to ask Margaret Trudeau about Michel Trudeau's death a few days before the funeral when she was visiting the tributes to Pierre Trudeau on Parliament Hill and causing her to cry because of his insensitivity.

I believe he apologized though.

She didn't just cry, she collapsed onto the lawn.  It was agonizing to see.

I know he apologized but it shouldn't have happened at all.

The fact that a person like Mike Duffy can enjoy the material comforts in exchange for what he is, is symbolic of what's wrong with this country.  That, and Buzz getting some kind of reward.

When a society rewards perfidiousness, surely it is rotten.

I watched this unfold live on TV tonight, and all I could think is that Mike Duffy is a supreme dickbag.  I like Pete Stoffer, and I also watched his tribute to veterans in the House a few hours earlier.  I'm pretty sure (not that I wasn't) that Stoffer is not a "faker," as the dishonorable senator would like us to believe.  I always thought that Duffy was a hack when he was on TV, and now that he's got a cushy parliamentary position, he's become a vitriolic, bumbling Conservative lap dog.  How that man got as far as he did in life, I'll never understand.

Yeah Duffy must of yelled "faker" at least a couple of times and even muttered the word conjob.Which was very ironic given it was pointed out how Harper lied his face off regarding the senate and then stacking it with his conservative buddy's . What I thought was a good knockout blow to the conservatives , was when Stoffer pointed out that these senate appontees were the biggest at any one tme in Canadian history. They should remind Canadians of that more often.

What would of stomped Duffy to the ground was if Stoffer had actual figures at hand to wave in his face (maybe at a later date). Good to see the CBC new format being somewhat fair for a change.

What a royal jerk. Duffy has definitely gone native in Ottawa to treat a fellow maritimer with such disrespect. The weirdest thing about Duffy's outrage is that it seems to be directed mostly at the press for writing about the $44,000 he charged for 3-4 months of hyperpartisan fundraising, and not Peter Stoffer. Yet it is Peter Stoffer he calls the fake, the conjob, the actor, etc. A man with an ego like that needs to be reined in. For his own good, Stephen Harper should tell Senator Duffy to shut the f* up!

As for the moderator, he really did a poor job. To let Stoffer get beat up like that, with no on air provocation, is inexcusable. If I were Stoffer I would tell the CBC that I'm never appearing on their show again- particularly if they allow their guests to get ridiculously slandered like that.

Mike Duffy, "King of Slime"

They should have turned Duffy's mike off while Stoffer was speaking, once he demonstrated he was going to keep trying to talk through it.

Duffy really is incredible. There's some background to this, which anyone on the Hill would know, and that makes it even more bizarre.

Peter Stoffer is Dutch. His parents were more than grateful to Canada and the Canadian army that liberated them. You don't need to have listened to Peter tell the long versions of the story to know that Dutch civilians suffered terribly at the end of the war. They were literally starving while having no idea when their deliverance would come.

I can understand people not liking Peter. And his obvious popularity would grate on a lot of those people. But you have to be a twisted idealogue to question Peter stoffer's authenticity. And right, of all people, Duffy.

I liked how he was told to mind his manners be Evan, but yet didn't. I have hated him all the way back to the farm reports he use to do. The guys is a bag of lying shit. I don't want to wish ill on people, but some shitbags have it comming. Weasel word....if you extrapolate over the course of the year....you mean like how during the summer MPS do a lot of travelling. Something senators don't have or need to do.

Reminds me how we have to abolish the senate as soon as possible. The CBC pointed out how in January the consevatives(duffys right there are no progressives left) will have a majority in the house, and you know they will block passage of most bills that have even the hint of proper money management.

Dusting off my parliamentary knowledge, I don't think the Senate has the ability to monkey with money bills, one way or another.

Everybody hates the senate, it seems, until we want them to protect one of our newly gored ox's.

I think an appointed body interfering with legislation passed by an elected house, whether I agree with that legislation or not, or whether I think the elected house could be more democratic or not, is an affront to democracy.  It's an affront to civil behavior, period.

I do hope they don't force us to hang them from lamposts one day.

Except for the courts upholding the Charter - right?

Wow, did he say 27 Senators appointed by a government that swore they would have Senators elected?  LOL  Duffy and his kind are extinct, they just don't know it yet.

In summary:

Now, understand that all this is in reaction, not to any of Duffy's policy stands (which I'm sure are dinosaurian, although I neither know nor care what they are in any detail) - but rather, to the fact that he was uncivilized, interrupted, and called Stoffer a "faker" in an interview, plus the fact that he is a senator.

Someone should analyze how progressive people can get so worked up about this irrelevant person (Duffy) that they end up defending Stoffer against a charge of being "insincere" in his drooling over the military.

When the Council of Canadians passed a resolution in October 2007 against military recruiting in high schools, here's how Mr. Stoffer responded:

Stoffer bravely stands up against the NDP line as a man of conscience [20]:

I remember this [21]:

In conclusion: Perhaps, in attacking Duffy, it would be good to recall not only people's manners, but also where they stand on the big issues facing Canada. Contrary to Duffy's bizarre charge, Peter Stoffer is no faker when it comes to his support of Canada's aggression and war crimes abroad.

Phew, I thought you were going to miss that opportunity unionist.

I reconsidered my comment prior to your quoting it, I agree that my reaction was purely to Duffy's behavior.  I don't know how many times I have encountered such arrogance and ignorance but obviously enough that it is a trigger for me.

When did commenting on exceptional arrogance ever interfere with people attending to substance?

And I never doubted that you would follow up with a snarky comment. You like Stoffer, do you? I think he's a bag of shit, the "King of Slime", and a waste of space. Only a greater master of those same arts, like Peter Duffy, could make Stoffer look good - and even then, only for a moment.

Thanks, ennir, I hadn't noticed - but I've now edited my post to delete your deleted comment. I still find it interesting, from a behavioural standpoint, that a scuzzy performance by a disreputable character like Duffy could make a warmonger like Stoffer look like the angelic victim.

When will the CBC air an interview with some honest and articulate NDP supporter challenging Stoffer on his pandering to the invaders?

So what's your point? Duffy accused Stoffer of being an "insincere fake" when he expresses support for military families etc... and I guess you are poingting out that Stoffer actually has a long record of sincerely being supportive of the military. On behalf of Peter Stoffer, i thank you for coming to his defence.

I freely acknowledge that a lot of people don't like Peter Stoffer. And don't make assumptions why I like him, my tastes in people are nothing if not ecumenical.

And the motivation of my snarky comment is that you couldn't stand to see someone on your shit list get some shine- irregardless that said shine has nothing to do with your perfectly tenable dislike of them.

Geez, Stock, that's exactly what I've been saying. Duffy's charge was comical. Stoffer is no fake. He is a sincere drooler over the Afghan invasion, so much so that he publicly flouts caucus policy and his leader on that point.

You must apparently admire him too, from the way you're talking. I think he's a waste of space, an absolute disgrace to the NDP, who should have been expelled from caucus long ago. But in this thread, everyone seems to be cheering him on. That's the power of the MSM. You can make a turd smell good by releasing tear gas.

I don't agree with Peter's views, but I think its way over the top to call him war mongerer.

But that really is just my opinion, you are certainly entiltled to call him a war mongere. And despite the in my opinion inflated rhetoric, I know and acknowledge its also an arguable rational point.

But methinks it a bit rich to expect that your opinions and position be elevated to the national spotlight for a grilling of Peter Stoffer.

Notwithstanding that there are substantive reasons a full open discussion would be good for the country. I was commenting on your intent.

No, Ken, my motivation was to point out the loss of perspective by babblers. If Duffy had been rude to George W. Bush, would the near-violent adjectives have been hurled out (the ones I collected above)? In fact, listen closely to the interview - to Stoffer - and tell me one point he made that was new or informative or profound. He didn't even refute Duffy's screaming charge that both their expense accounts are the same. His whole content was that the Senate is an unelected waste of money, and that Harper is a hypocrite for having changed his policy on appointing senators. Were you unaware of those "revelations"?

I was just making a point there. Stoffer should simply be expelled for publicly flouting convention and caucus policy. How can you tolerate a sitting member of the NDP that publicly supports the Canadian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? Is he better than Bev Desjarlais? (Mind you, they didn't throw her out of caucus either - it was her constituents who finally had to relegate her to the trash heap.) You don't have to call him "warmonger", but you can hardly deny that he stands in direct opposition to where the party stands on one of most important dividing lines in Canadian politics today.

It needs to be said here that I don't watch TV and cant get Youtube. Would like to have seen this bit of theatre.

But the comments here have been about what people saw in the exchange, and have taken off from particular content that has nothing to do with the exchange about the Senate and expenses.

You mean, all your comments have been made in absence of seeing the actual interview? Ok, that explains a bit.

There has never been the kind of unity in the NDP expressed in that Convention resolution. And over time, the membership has gone every which way. Criticism of that is perfectly valid, but it leaves no grounds for crucifying anyone. Not to mention that for all that its clear where Peater Stoffer stands- he keeps that mostly out of the press. He's not Pat Martin.

And point of information: its one of the most important dividing lines in Canadian politics to you and others, but definitely not to Canadians in general. There are grounds to argue that it should be; but for me, that it isn't makes an essential difference in how people are judged, irregardless of where I stand on the issue.

But do look back at the discussion. It has become, and been for a while, about whether it is inherently wrong headed, diversionary, whatever, to take our eyes off Peter Stoffer being a war mongerer. I don't need to have seen the interview to comment on that.

The conflict between Stoffer and Duffy also had nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan - which is Unionist's obsession - it was entirely about the Senate. On the issue of the Senate, Stoffer is terrific. I agree with him 10000%, every penny spent on the Senate is a penny of waste. How does it make anyone feel that some alleged crook with ADQ and Tory connections like Leo Housakos gets appointed by Harper to the Senate and he now gets paid something like $130,000 a year for the next forty years - and he doesn't have to do ANYTHING. He can spend 100% of his time being a Tory bagman if he wants while being paid by taxpayers...and the sight of an arrogant tub of lard like Mike Duffy accusing him of being a fake will only make Stoffer look like a hero and make the Tories look bad.

Duffy looked so upset from the very start of the interview that i wonder if he had just seen some scary polling numbers from CCMV and went ballistic. Of course, if there is one thing i can guarantee its that the more this debate between Duffy and Stoffer gets played and replayed in Nova Scotia, the more Tory support in CCMV will decline and NDP support will increase!

.

As noted I can't watch it, and I'm curious where from it appears that Duffy got himself psyched up for the 'you faker' comment?

Irregardless of whether he was rational about it, what did Stoffer say or what does he do, that appeared to drive Duffy to say that.

I'm just purely curious what got Duffy's goat. [But if it was entirely about comments on the Senate, no mystery to that.]

There was no trigger in the interview itself - Stoffer was calm and polite and said nothing against Duffy as such. Duffy simply declared early on that Stoffer was a "faker", that he was insincere in his support of the RCMP and the military - saying Stoffer "votes against them every time out". Duffy himself was on his way to an RCMP mess dinner, so he was grandstanding.

As for what triggered him, Duffy was furious at having been "singled out" in Stoffer's report and in the news coverage. He said Stoffer's expenses last year were $128,000, which he said were almost identical to Duffy's - and he said there were incumbent Liberal senators who had "fantastic" levels of expenses which Stoffer didn't mention, such as Dallaire and Carstairs.

He also was convinced that the whole motivation behind Stoffer's report was connected to the upcoming Monday byelections.

I remember something from years ago, concerning Duffy.  I think he sued someone for libel because they said in print that Duffy had taken a leave from CTV to go to a "fat farm" or something.  Not that this is terribly relevant, other than the person writting about it made reference to Duffy's "notoriously" thin skin.

I think Stoffer rather artfully singled out Duffy because he knew Duffy would blow a gasket.   I mean, he got Duffy to do everything but wag his chins and appoplectically say, ala Nixon: "I am not a fat cat".

I like the cut of Stoffer's gib.  Kinda guy who would bring a gun to a gun fight.

What an idiot. It would be hard to get from an obscure report by Stoffer- which I haven't heard of- to the sleepy by-election.

But Duffy may have managed to beat those odds.

"Look at that folks- Duffy in a furious dash for his own net! He just might make it around his goalie!"

Not to mention that Peter's travel expenses are almost purely for the commuting that every MP does. Duffy already lived in Ottawa, though now that its on the taxpayers dime, I'm sure he comes more often to whatever second home he has out here. And even if that was justifiable, it aint no weekly commute.

Duffy is a pure attack dog now. But this time he bit himself and his party. I will have to see this.

Senior party workers in the Senate is not new. But lodging attack dogs there is another new page from Conservatives.

[double post]

Well Tommy, it is a little bit relevant, because although Stoffer was generally polite and respectful throughout, he did make exactly the same offensive jibe at 6:35 of the video clip:

The whole interview was a bit of a flop in another way for Evan Solomon. He had been wrongly briefed, that Stoffer had evidence of "overspending" by senators - and he kept asking Stoffer to provide figures. In fact, Stoffer's point (a correct one, albeit nothing new) was that the 27 new senators would cost $177M over x period of time, plus expenses, from a government which had promised it would no longer appoint senators. There was actually no allegation of "overspending". When Duffy charged that it was just aimed at the byelection, he may well have been right - although there's nothing wrong with politicking.

Duffy sued Frank magazine because he felt their ridicule of him was ruining his chances of being appointed to the Senate

NDP claims 27 new Tory senators will cost taxpayers $177M

They should all be fired and re-trained for real productive jobs.

conservative columnist Don Martin has written a devastating editorial on Mike Duffy in today's National Post. Martin states that the whole Conservative party and PM Harper were offended by Duffy's behaviour and finishes with this:

"Mike Duffy's only value has become that of poster boy for why the Senate needs, at very least, major reform if not outright abolition."

I agree.  I was just trying to state the facts above in an objective manner without letting my personal dislike of Mike Duffy get in the way.

Duffy's behaviour last year during the general election was terrible - he was so biased in favour of the Conservatives it was disgraceful.  And to then accept a Senate position after the election made him look even worse.

I think someone should hollow out Mike Duffy and turn him into a shelter for the homeless.

You know,  I really try to do two things, even with people whose views and actions I find dispicable:  I do my best not to compare them to something not human, and I really try to stay away from making cracks about thier physical appearance. 

But, I think Duffy put himself outside a lot of civil considerations when he went after Margaret Trudeau.  Insensitivity or partizan attack?  Who knows?  Who cares to make the distinction?     

He's a mass of useless, blustering scum.

Duffy is Canada's Rush Limbaugh. Thanks Canada's Economic Action Plan!

I never liked Duffy, I always thought he was a horse's ass. 

[removed because sometimes when I'm tired my posts are non sequiturs and then the next morning they embarrass me]

Since unionist was busy singling out babblers, my point of calling him a bag of shit has less to do with the interview than the fact this bag of shit faked being an objective journalist. Though we are not fooled, many people talk about CTV and how they saw this interview or that interview that made someone look dumb. Well is it any surprise (Couldn't care less about stoffer) that Duffy is taking a beatting when he is anything but objective as a journalist. That is what the vitriol is all about.

Duffy would lobb softballs at cons all day long and then go after something that was of no substance and harp away on it from people of the other parties. He was thought to be in the range(loosly) of Don Newman....are you kidding me. Duffy did hatchet jobs the entire time and is thought of as a balanced and fair jounalist. SHITBAG

Oh and lying part is simple too. Stoffer had 128,000 over the year which isn't the same as 44,000 over 3 months 44,000 time 4(as there are 4 quarters in a year not 3 duffster) is over 170,000. So not nearly the same spending. All this money was spent on fundraising for the cons which should come from their travel expense not canadian tax payers. Nor does this represent an entire year, could be higher could be lower. You can bet he didn't start the day after his senate appointment he was probably still hungover from "I Can't Believe I get Paid For Being A Hack" Party.

Instead you jump on to another of your hobby horses and just slam us for pointing out what a lying shitbag this guy is. He probably has done more harm to democracy and canadian values than anything peter stoffer has or will ever say. This wasn't about Stoffers war views this was about a senate that once again got stuffed by people who said they wouldn't stuff it, then turn around and spend an outrageous amount in short order. Then to top it off, once caught they revert back to the "waaa but the libs did it too" At what point to the bootstrappers take responsibility for thier own actions?

They have been in government for almost 5 years. It's ok to take credit for other parties but continue to shift blame and muddy the waters on everything else. Dirty politics and should be called out on it, regardless of YOUR VIEWS on Stoffer(who has enough threads on him for you to play in already.)

Go ahead and send this to the mods as a personal attack, if you tally mine to yours it's a 1:100 ratio.

Duffy spent all his time smirking and interrupting, saying Stoffer was a "fake" for "pretending" to support the RCMP and the military. That was actually the sum total of Duffy's offensive behaviour (and it was offensive indeed). Babblers here have ranted on about how bad Duffy was in the past (as if anyone doesn't know that) and how sincere Stoffer is in his support of the military.

So read this thread from the beginning, Ken, even if you can't view the interview. I didn't initiate the issue of Stoffer's stand on war and the military. It was initiated by Duffy, then right at the beginning of this thread, Stoffer's "sincerity" was "defended" by RedRover, griffynchezenko [57], Stockholm, and KenS [58], before I ever entered this thread. Want to check back and see?

So then, well after the three of you (not sure if the two others, like you, hadn't actually viewed the interview) had defended Stoffer against Duffy's charge of being a "fake" military booster, I decided I would introduce some contrast by reminding babblers that Stoffer's military support is actually not such an honourable thing after all.

So Ken, what's your problem? You defend Stoffer on the military, and I can't respond? I will respond, always. Because, while you and others in this thread may not like to hear it, I will say it:

On the scale of what matters in this world, Stoffer's boosting of the Afghan "mission" is far more immoral and reprehensible than the uncivilized antics of that clown Duffy can ever be.

The moral of the story being, being moral is all. 

I think it is very important, but it leaves moral people very vulnerable to the morally porcine elements in real life politics. Particularly if the disposessed are left unrepresented by displays of supreme virture, their champions unelectable.

Coming from Don Martin, that says a great deal.

I like the use of all those colours in the highlighting.

I didn't defend Stoffer on the military. I defended Stoffer's sincerity, contrasted with Duffy's. End of statement. [Even prefaced it with, "whatever you think of Stoffer and...." etc]

I'm perfectly willing to compartmentalize that- as I am willing to do with people I don't like and/or deeply dissaprove of other things they do or stand for. From what I've seen around here, you don't. Takes all kinds.

Stoffer is in a minority among Canadians in his stand on our involvement in Afghanistan. He is a vocal minority of 1 or 2 in the NDP caucus, and defies NDP policy publicly. I didn't raise his military positions here. You and RedRover and others did. You all defended his "sincerity", and some (not you) even defended his stand. I may or may not like Stoffer's positions and actions in other areas. But you scorned me above for calling him a "warmonger" where others had raised the issue (including Duffy) - not me. So in actual fact, you are the one who has trouble with compartmentalization. You like Stoffer, so you don't like attacks on him - even if the attack may be justified.

To resume: Duffy's entire attack on Stoffer was (1) on his military and RCMP stand, and (2) for allegedly singling out Duffy's expenses from among others. You really should watch the interview, because you seem to think it was about the Senate.

ETA: No, back to compartmentalization. You will see me on this board praising Layton and the NDP to the skies in one thread (such as, their excellent and timely position on French language legislation in Québec), and condemning them with equal fervour in another (such as, their shameless pandering to the worst right-wing sentiments on crime and guns). The inability to be discriminating in one's approach to parties and politicians characterizes an unfortunate number of people who post here. I'm not among them.

Thanks for the info on Stoffer, unionist. I haven't paid much attention, if any, to him in a long time.

By the way, folks (or at least, those of you who have actually watched the interview), I don't think Duffy ever once defended the existence of the Senate throughout his rude performance. The closest he came was to say that his expenses in dealing with Canadians were just as justifiable as Stoffer's.

Why would he? The currently constituted Senate is still on Harper's chopping block. Harper is just smarter than all his adversaries. As long as they won't let him abolish the Senate or (preferably) expand the influence therein of his reactionary voting base, he will just keep on dumping as many Mike Duffys and Patrick Brazeaus and other lackeys into it as he possibly can.

Yes Harper wants to do good but no one will let him....

Stoffer by the way does not defy the NDPs position publicly. You have to be a close follower of these things to know where he stands.

This is why Duffy was able to say "you claim to support the military but vote against them every time". And as far as I know he does whether the vote is whipped or not. Like I said, hes not Pat Martin- who does publicly distance himself.

You're largely correct, in the sense that he isn't a loudmouth like Pat Martin, and no, of course he doesn't vote against the party line. But he has never hidden his views on the "mission", and these can be found in public comments (you read my links above?). And certainly in circles of activists and those who care about politics, Stoffer's stand is well known.

Okay, can people discuss this without making fat jokes? There have been a few already in this thread and it is completely irrelevant and offensive. Duffy had a heart attack for frig's sake and has been struggling with it for some time. I highly doubt his weight has anything to do with his positions, personality or rudeness. 

Also, I think Stoffer's overall charge is ridiculous. As long as there exists an appointed Senate, all regions should be represented. A lot of regions have had no senator for a long time, so they should be filled. They are entitled to the same salary and expenses as other senators. As long as we have a ridiculously undemocratic institution of an appointed Senate, PMs are OBVIOUSLY going to select those who agree with them. Especially when the majority are Liberal. Now, if Stoffer wants to make a real point, he should bring a private members bill forward to abolish the Senate or support efforts to make it elected. We have the institution, as per our constitution, and it is wrong to leave representation unfilled. Obviously the "representation" is faulty due to appointments rather than elections, but it is still unfair to leave many vacant seats for certain areas.

This is what I thought as soon as I heard Duffy had been appointed. Harper wanted someone who would make it most obvious that the appointed Senate needs to go. He knew that Duffy couldn't be effectively managed and would be his communications staff's worst nightmare. But, to Canadians, he can provide a flagrant example of why we should either have an elected Senate or none at all. 

Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP):
"Madam Speaker [70], I listened with great interest to the member for Toronto Centre's vigorous and enthusiastic defence of the status quo.

    Does the member actually think that we have such a rigid Constitution that the political will of the people could not be tested by a referendum in terms of whether they want an elected Parliament or not?

http://www.ndp.ca/press/harper-shows-hypocrisy-on-senate [71]

Do you really think they represent their areas?

Becoming quite the trend here at babble, posts telling us how wonderful Harper is, and telling us all how he is just doing what is best for Canadians even...

Remind, what you please cut it out? The Conservative policy is an elected Senate or no Senate - has been for a long time. This is your second weird comment in response to babblers pointing out the obvious.

Pointing out the obvious?

what that Harper is wonderful and really wants to get rid of the Senate, indicated by his filling it full of lackey's?

those are the comments that i find weird.....

remind - please point out where I said anything about Harper being wonderful.  I happen to think that the Senate needs reform. This is a position shared by both the Conservatives and the NDP - although they differ on what should change. 

Geez! all I wrote was that ALL PMs under the current system are going to obviously appoint lackeys who share their views and will vote with them AND that certain areas should not be left unrepresented if a senator dies or retires. I pointed out that the representation is faulty - but that is still no reason to say one region should have a senator while the other doesn't. 

You whole supposition on Harper's motives for Duffy was lauding Harper, ghislaine, i am surprised you cannot see it yourself....

...afterall if Harper wanted to reform the Senate he could have put  a referenda through,  in last year's election, or even start talking it up, to see where the polls were at in that respect..to make it a election position...again....

did you even read Jack Harris' comments to that effect??

that Harper  has let it drop indicates where he is at  with Senate reform, not his filling it full of lackey's....

then you throw out all those attacks against the NDP and Stoffer, as if the NDP were no where on this....until Stoffer brought it up....apparently just to attack Duffy or to interfere in by-elections, if we were to believe what some were postulating in this thread

....which is about as reality based as Harper trying to reform the Senate by filling it full of Conservative lackies.

No, it wasn't, remind. I am sick of you putting words in my mouth. I was not "lauding" him, just stating my opinion for motives. I think there should be a referendum. And please point out where I attacked the NDP?? All I wrote was that Stoffer should focus on getting rid of the Senate (and he also should get a reality check on foreign policy - but that's another issue), not pointing out the "waste" of our constitutional obligations being fulfilled. Do you think certain areas should just remain without representation? I think EVERY Senator in the current formulation is a waste of taxpayer money. But, I still don't think we should just leave one of PEI's seat empty for example because it might be further "waste". We have just as much right to waste taxpayer money with a senator as BC does, lol! 

Anyways, I cannot believe you would say I was lauding Harper! Anytime, I write about Afghanistan on here, my position is to get out immediately. Do you think Harper is even going to leave in 2011 as promised? I certainly don't. 

ignoring the false aspersion.....this time

The military has already started making preparations to get out, not that your example indicating that you are not supportive of Harper actually indicates anything anyway.

And indeed your supposition of Harper's motives was lauding Harper for the reasons I noted...if he really wanted to reform the Senate, as he said, he would have made a move to do so...making up some large implausible scenario that he is doing so, is definitely lauding IMV.

you inferred the NDP and Stoffer were doing nothing, and I call Stoffer's actions actually doing something and indicating Harper's doing nothing but stacking cronies in...doing something to bring public attention towards Harper's inaction, and the need to do something

You think Duffy represents PEI? Ha....

This is like stepping into a parallel universe.

Ghislaine, I understood your point, and indeed I share it.

And the point of this thread was to demonstrate that when one "stands up", one had better be pure as, as, ...as glacial ice!

After watching that clip I now appreciate why I have never been able to watch a full report by that asshole.  He has always engaged the "reach for the remote" response from me.

The part of the story that bears repeating is that his travel expenses seem to coincide with Conservative fundraisers in various parts of the country.  That is the real story not that Harper had to appoint senators because it is wrong to leave people constitutionally underrepresented.  It is the NDP's job to point out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives running on the Senate issue while bashing the Liberal's for appointing political hacks to the Senate and then setting a new record for the most outright hacks every appointed simultaneously.  A real statesman would have appointed people whose qualifications extended beyond the POM's party.  Harper has shown once again how cynical and reprehensible he is and that is an issue that an opposition party shod be highlighting.  

To make myself clear Duffy is a sycophant whose has gotten where he is by licking the boots of the Canadian elite and he was appointed by Harper. 

....agree unionist, seeing Harper applauded here  is indeed a parallel universe....

like we are all supposed believe he is fixing the Senate, by stacking it with lackies...even though nor referenda has been or will be called.....

I knew Duffy's coverage of the last election was going to be suspect when on the first day of the campaign he interviewed David Emerson and asked him nothing about why he was resigning his seat.  Emerson claimed he was leaving because he wanted to spend more time with his family when we all know he left because he couldn't get re-elected in Vancouver-Kingsway after his floor-crossing behaviour.  A good journalist would have raised that issue but Duffy did not and just said he understood Emerson's reasons for leaving.

The worst part of Duffy's behaviour during the campaign was when he seemed to get off on making fun of Dion's English-language struggles in the re-start interview.  Andrew Potter wrote a pretty critical column about Duffy's conduct as a result and of course Dion ended up being redeemed with the decision by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council's condemnation of CTV's behaviour.

If all it takes to be appointed to the Senate is to have no human decency whatsoever, then I'm overqualified by a huge margin. Where do I drop off my resume for Harper?

Excellent post!!

That is amazing. Duffy acted like a stuffed-shirt blowhard. I am not an N-Dipper, but Peter Stouffer's support for the military is unquestionable. Also unquestionable is that Duffy just established himself as a complete asshole.

Indeed.

Abolish the Senate.  Thanks Duffy for being the poster child of what is wrong with the Senate.

This cartoon in today's Halifax Chronicle says it all. If the NDP ends up winning CCMV by a couple of hundreds votes - we can all thank Mike Duffy for helping to make it happen!!

Obviously not.

Q: When did the Roman Senate become obsolete?

Viva Gracchi! Viva Stoffer!

That's a great cartoon....pork barrell politics

Oh you mean this cartoon? How could I have missed it?

You know that I care what happens to you,
And I know that you care for me.
So I don't feel alone,
Or the weight of the stone,
Now that I've found somewhere safe
To bury my bone.
And any fool knows a dog needs a home,
A shelter from pigs on the wing. - Pink Floyd, Animals album

How is it possible that pigs are more equal than the other animals?

excellent song choice for the situation

Splendid repeat of that cartoon, Fidel!

Exquisite comment on Fidel's song choice!

Scintillating political commentary all round!

Nothing like a Pink Floyd concert and song posting of theirs  to indicate a few things...socially and politically

take it you are not a Pink Floyd fan ...

Senate report short changes consumers July

Remember the Gracchi brothers.

I am Spartacus!

I guess the bankers' have pork on their fork (I couldn't resist). Pigs unite and protest - some swine is making a mockery of your good intelligence.

And what Duffy also seems to forget is that at least an MP has been elected by the people unlike an unelected Senator.

Stoffer has a seat because the people elected him - Duffy has one because it was given to him for being a political shill.

but but but...that makes him elite don't cha know, beholding to  no one....

Mike Duff's Twitter account has been hijacked:

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2009/11/11/11715701-sun.html

McKinnon, favorite editorial cartoonist by far.

As to the SenatorDuffy twitter, canoe.ca has the following poll results:

Would you follow the real Mike Duffy on Twitter?

Yes, I loved him on CTV

 15%

No, but I might follow the impostor

 20%

Who's Mike Duffy?

 65%

Total Votes for this Question: 946

Is there any way to confirm that a large portion of the 44,000 was spent raising money for the Cons?  I am organizing a Mike Duffy protest when he comes to manitoba to host a 100 dollar a plate Conservative fundraiser, and I want to make sure I have my facts straight when I accuse him of billing taxpayers for his trips around the country to raise money for Cons.  I hope to catch him on video blowing a gasket when our group of protestors surprise him outside the Tory fundraiser, and get a chance to shame the Tory MP for all the taxpayers money he uses to print his camapign propaganda 10%ers.

Senator proposes more amendments to weaken product safety legislation

And they still need cleaning out of Ottawa.

Given that these parasitical jackasses are ensconced firmly in their seats with practically no chance of being fired, why are they even caving into corporate interests at all? Did they all suddenly get promises of fancy villas in Mexico or something?

The kick backs and free bvacations they happen to get as well as "remembering where they came from"

That kind of sarcasm will you get into the isolation and humiliation room.  It did for me last night.  Shoulda been there, Unionist.  It was like 1984 done via performance art.

Sorry, I seem to have drifted into another topic.  Perhaps I'll find a more appropriate thread.  Because The Pie's all about appropriate.

When is your event?