Patrick W Brown, the Conservative candidate for Barrie, is demanding that the incumbent, Liberal MP Aileen Carroll, apologize for (former) Liberal Party (Ontario) Executive Vice President Mike Klander's smear on Barrie:

Barrie’s Liberal candidate must immediately denounce and condemn “totally insensitive and absurd” statements that slander opponents of the Liberal Party and Barrie, the city she represents in Parliament.

Not only were the people of Barrie attacked by the Liberals, the whole City came under the shameless broadside of a top Liberal strategist Mike Kander who wrote:

“Check out the Live 8 website and the list of all the concert venues: Hyde Park, London; Circus Maximus, Rome; Red Square, Moscow, Palais de Verdaillis, Paris; Museum of Art, Philadelphia; Siegessaule, Berlin and finally Park Place in Barrie. Every one time I say that I can’t help but using the Monster Truck Announcer Voice – PARK PLACE IN BARRIE.”

“Barrie! Where the hell is Barrie? You know, London, Rome, Moscow, Berlin and Barrie. I’m sorry but I don’t even know what the hell the Siegessaule is, but it sure sounds more impressive than PARK PLACE.”

“I call upon Aileen Carroll to not only denounce the comments by the Executive Vice President of the Ontario wing of her federal party, but to apologize to everyone concerned, especially the citizens of Barrie,” said Patrick Brown, Conservative candidate for Barrie.

“To make derogatory comments about election opponents, especially making fun of physical deformities, is in outrageously poor taste,” said Brown. “But to show complete disrespect to a whole community, especially to one as significantly important to Canada as Barrie, is shocking.”

“It’s just another example of how crass, crude and contemptuous those running the Liberal Party really are toward what they perceive to be average Canadians.”

If you live in or around Barrie, or heck, even if you just like the place, and you think the people of Barrie deserve to have an MP who will defend them against nasty statements about their city made by a top Liberal strategist, send an email to Aileen Carroll, or give her a call at (704) 719-9039, and tell her you think Patrick Brown deserves an answer.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:24 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 3 kb.

[CTV is now carrying this story, including the issue of the Chinese origins of the phrase.]

When BC Liberal Party President Jamie Elmhirst quoted Industry Minister David Emerson describing NDP Jack Layton, Elmhirst reported a very colourful turn of phrase:

Jack Layton had a great weekend in BC. First he managed to find something nice to say about Svend Robinson, although the performance struck me as a touch insincere, even for Jack Layton. How did Minister Emerson describe his style at our Convention dinner? Oh yes, he said that Jack Layton had a boiled dog's head smile. That would have made even me wince if I hadn't have been laughing so hard.

I thought he was being evocative with his imagery, and dismissed it. I was wrong. The phrase has much more meaning than what I expected.

Apparently the phrase is Chinese:

Saap Sook Gao Tao - boiled dog head - when you really happy and showing all your teeth all the time, you look like a dog head that's been boiled

But more interestingly, the phrase might also be rude, as opposed to being very descriptive.

During the Cultural Revolution, the phrase "rotten dog's head" (zalan goutou) became a popular insult.

But "boiled dog's head"? I found a reference that suggests it is an insult:

To the officer that was smiling at RPCNs for their disturbed look : "Your smile very ugly, like sup-suk-gao-tao (boiled dog head)."

And then that led me over to rabble.ca:

It's not just a Chinese saying, it's an extremely rude Chinese saying, and Emerson probably knew that, as his wife is Chinese.

She is Chinese:

David is married to Theresa Yeuk-Si Tang. Theresa came to Canada from Hong Kong in 1972 and worked for 15 years in the financial services industry.

I can't find independent evidence about how severe an insult this is. But if it is a base and vile insult in Chinese, and Emerson knew that, I might be convinced to reconsider what the right response to Emerson's comments about Layton is.

At least an apology. Maybe more. And maybe the people in the Chinese community would have an opinion about the sort of vile humour (if indeed it is that vile) is being lobbed about Liberal ministers.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:01 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.

1 CAN CANADA SURVIVE ANOTHER THIRTY YEARS OF THIS? Can anyone in Canada imagine going on for another three decades in the manner we have gone on during the past thirty years? Can anyone imagine a three decade continuation of the ballooning waste of tax dollars we have witnessed over the past three decades? Can anyone imagine another thirty years of the past rate of encroachments by the Federal one party state government into Provincial jurisdiction? Can anyone imagine another thirty years of this broken partial ‘democracy’ where almost everything is appointed by a PM ‘elected’ by a minority of voters? Can anyone imagine where we will end up with another three decades of a negative, divisive one party state party government propping itself up by dissing dishonestly our largest trading partner and dividing men against women and ethnic groups against other Canadians? Can anyone imagine another thirty years of being governed by a government that will do anything in its power to stymie genuine democratic modernization no matter what the cost in regional resentments leading to the possible dismemberment of the country? No, we cannot imagine going on as we have been for the past three decades because we know another thirty years like this will spell the end of our country. For most of its history, Canada has been governed by the ‘Liberal’ party of Canada, and so most of our problems, (from the many ongoing decades of residential school abuse, to the divisive and probably illegal encroachments into provincial jurisdictions) are the fault of this ‘Liberal’ one party state party government. No, we cannot imagine another thirty years of being governed by a hypocritical party known for the dishonesty of “running on the left, and governing on the right”. How can we take anything this type of political machine says, seriously, given their record of breach of trust? Another thirty years of corrupting and corrupt governance by Canada’s one party state party, where nothing can be believed, as Jack Layton found out recently, is simply not possible. The attempt by Ontario voters to re-impose this rejected party on the West and Quebec, simply means the end of the original intent of Confederation, and thereby, the end of Canada. This Liberal Party has almost destroyed the country with its corrupt and arrogant legacy of one party rule. Canada’s problems are not economic; they are political, and these ever worsening problems of governance fall squarely at the feet of this continuously centralizing, expanding, corrupt and corrupting, one party state party. Genuine and far-reaching democratic reform is the only option Canada has left if Canada is to be saved over the long term. All opposition parties have come out in favour of democratic reform. Canada has only been a one party state for so long because the Liberal Party has not seen fit to allow democratic reform. E

Posted by: edward mills at December 29, 2005 02:23 AM (c4Z9/)

2 The independent evidence you're looking for comes from Emerson himself, who admits (in the CP story posted on CTV) that he was aware of what it meant: B.C. Grit cabinet minister in blog controversy Updated Thu. Dec. 29 2005 1:26 AM ET Canadian Press VANCOUVER — The Liberal election campaign has taken another hit from the blogosphere after its star B.C. candidate used a possibly insulting term to describe NDP Leader Jack Layton. Industry Minister David Emerson is quoted in a blog written by Jamie Elmhirst, the federal Liberals' B.C. president, as referring to Layton's "boiled dog's head smile.'' An NDP spokesman said the term is an English translation of a Chinese insult. Elmhirst referred to the comment, made at a pre-election dinner, after suggesting Layton's friendly remarks about maverick New Democrat Svend Robinson during an early-December campaign stop in Vancouver were "a touch insincere.'' "How did Minister Emerson describe his style at our convention dinner?'' Elmhirst writes in the Dec. 5 blog entry. "Oh yes, he said that Jack Layton had a boiled dog's head smile. That would have made even me wince if I hadn't have been laughing so hard.'' Stanley Tsao, an NDP campaign spokesman who handles Chinese media, said Wednesday the phrase is Cantonese in origin and can be taken a number of ways depending on the context. Tsao said Emerson's remark showed "arrogance and disrespect,'' especially in light of comments about Layton and his wife that appeared in another Liberal's blog last week. "References like that do not help the debate,'' he said. News of the comment comes just days after a senior member of the Liberal Ontario wing resigned for disparaging remarks about Layton and his wife, Olivia Chow. Michael Klander, the party's Ontario executive vice-president, in his personal blog compared Chow, a Chinese-Canadian and an NDP candidate in Toronto, to a chow chow dog. The blog also referred to Layton as an "asshole.'' In an interview Wednesday, Emerson said he made the remark about Layton in a speech at a dinner during the B.C. federal Liberals' convention the weekend before the election call. He said it wasn't meant to be disrespectful. "It was in reference to his constant chattering away with this great big grin on his face, pasted on, kind of an over-extended grin,'' Emerson said. "It's a Cantonese expression which I use on myself and my wife uses on me all the time when I have to pose for pictures.'' "I was referring to constantly seeing Jack Layton looking like a boiled dog's head, talking about some of these shallow, ideologically driven policies of the NDP.'' Emerson said he learned the jibe from his Hong Kong-born wife, Theresa Yeuk-Si Tang. "She's got tons of them,'' he said. "We certainly use it in our family and my wife says it's commonly used in the Cantonese community. It certainly wasn't meant as disrespectful.'' Emerson insisted it was in jest and said there are other choice Cantonese phrases he could apply to Layton, such as "frog in the well.'' It refers to someone who draws conclusions about the entire world based on a narrow perspective. Layton's press secretary, Ian Capstick, said the remark was indicative of Liberal arrogance. "It's disappointing when they cannot find fault in policy or in our activism or in the way we do our work on Parliament Hill, but instead decide to attack the personality traits of either the NDP here or others,'' Capstick said from Ottawa. Emerson is fighting for re-election in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding after first winning it in 2004. The former forest company CEO and senior provincial bureaucrat became the Liberals' B.C. political minister under Prime Minister Paul Martin, helping deliver billions of federal dollars to the province. The Liberals have given him the lead role in the B.C. campaign, pitching him as the man who helped end years of federal neglect of the westernmost province. The Elmhirst blog appears on the Liberals' B.C. campaign web site (www.teambc.ca) and was highlighted on Bourque Newswatch (bourque.org), which describes itself as the Canadian answer to the muckraking Drudge Report.

Posted by: Patrick at December 29, 2005 03:14 AM (u0igE)

3 But of course, you knew that, since you had it linked to your post. My apologies - I should have read more closely - you're looking for evidence that it is more unseemly than Erickson is intimating, and I don't have that.

Posted by: Patrick at December 29, 2005 03:19 AM (u0igE)

4 Of course it was an insult. Of course the NDP waxeth righteousness indignation. Who was it that said, "Madam, I'm drunk, but in the morning you will still be ugly"? Politics. But when you don't offer the public policies and something for the media to talk about, then they go looking for something to fill the paper. A campaign of "Vote for me because my opponent is ugly" starts to look very tired. A campaign of "Vote for me because I am innocent and my opponent is ugly" is just pathetic.

Posted by: john at December 29, 2005 08:15 AM (fOVEr)

5 These comments are not really part of the campaign. That's the funny thing. They were not intended as campaign statements but they have become them regardless. This is the same problem that plagues the entire Internet: the sense that one can say anything, no matter how insulting or cruel (i.e. a flame), that one would normally never say in person. The blogging thing has given it a pathetic twist. Blogging is popular and people want to jump onboard. As they strive to be cool, and funny, and shoot off the hip like they imagine blogging is all about, they end up saying some really stupid stuff. These gaffes fit neatly into that age-old typically male tradition: showing off to impress your friends. Man oh man, does that ever bite us in the ass sometimes.

Posted by: Ade at December 29, 2005 08:46 AM (4p91Z)

6 Ya know, the recent spate of Liberal apparatchiks being purged for their rude blogging spurred me on to surfing the primary Liberal blogger sites (a distasteful task I undertook for purely scientific purposes)...they certainly stand in stark contrast to the blogs run by CPC MPs or cnadidates. The difference was like that of the tribal vulgarity and dogmatic linear chanting on the Liberal sites to pointed reasoning and personal responsibility and self respect noted on the CPC blogs....most prominent among them was Monte Solberg...Monte runs a class blog...I wish all political commentary could be so civil. I suppose we can only be thankful Caroline Parrish was not PC literate enough to run a blog...I can imagine the venom and vulgarity it would contain.

Posted by: W.L.Mackenzie Redux at December 29, 2005 10:09 AM (sdMWv)

7 Mackenzie, I'm quite certain that by now, an urgent missive has gone out from the Liberal Warm Dead Bodies Room to tell people to clean up their blogs. And I'm quite certain that they've all looked at what they've written and said "Nope, no problem here".

Posted by: Patrick at December 29, 2005 10:56 AM (u0igE)

8 I find these "Bloggings" (if that is the correct term) hilarious. Especially the ones about Chow-chow and boiled dog's head, which I take to mean a false, show-biz type smile. Incidentally, do the Chinese really boil and eat dog's heads? Ugh! Lighten up folks and have a laugh. Take these remarks in the manner which they were intended.

Posted by: Gary Worton at December 29, 2005 11:00 AM (ywZa8)

9 Certainly I suggested that we all take this lightly in my original post. But since then I've come to learn that there may be a cultural component to the insult that goes well beyond the physical description. I don't understand it completely, but it might be one of those things that I would laugh at but a Chinese person who understands the comment would cringe at. If so, and Emerson knew that, maybe we should be taking this a bit more seriously.

Posted by: Angry in T.O. at December 29, 2005 11:03 AM (1nUEP)

10 Cheap Jerseys From China Free Shipping,Cheap Nfl Jerseys,Enjoy The Cheap Womens Nfl Jerseys!

Posted by: Cheap Dolphins jerseys at November 29, 2012 11:21 AM (wmdzq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

[Update: I've delved deeper into the meaning of the strange phrase David Emerson used, and now I'm wondering if perhaps this is worse than it first appears.]

Thanks to Bourque, we have this charming bit from BC Liberal Party President Jamie Elmhirst, recalling the words of Industry Minister David Emerson:

Jack Layton had a great weekend in BC. First he managed to find something nice to say about Svend Robinson, although the performance struck me as a touch insincere, even for Jack Layton. How did Minister Emerson describe his style at our Convention dinner? Oh yes, he said that Jack Layton had a boiled dog's head smile. That would have made even me wince if I hadn't have been laughing so hard.

First, I'm certain David Emerson would like to to have a chat with Elmhirst about what is to be kept in confidence, and what is to be repeated on a public website, assuming that phone call hasn't already been placed.

But are either Emerson or Elmhirst guilty of pulling a Klander?

I don't think so. The description of Jack Layton having a "boiled dog's head smile", as unappealing as that is, is descriptive but not racist or homophobic. It does not draw an identifiable group into the insult, to be used as part of the insult, thus insulting both that group and the original target.

For instance, when Stephen Harper is described as looking "gay" in a cowboy suit, Mike Klander was clearly relying on stereotyped views of homosexual appearance, as if there was such a thing, as a basis for the insult. The offends homosexuals as well as Stephen Harper, and so is deemed unacceptable. The Olivia Chow insult was keyed on Olivia Chow's name and her Asian appearance, and in doing so cast the insult on all Asian women, and so it also goes too far.

Basically an insult should endeavour to avoid too much collateral damage, as it were.

That isn't the case here with the "boiled dog's head smile" insult. But in the aftermath of the Klander incident, we might be too willing to take every puerile (or even elaborate) insult flung by the Liberals and try to turn it into a firing offense.

That would be a mistake.

First, it is unlikely to work, since people will be able to tell when an insult goes too far, and when it doesn't. A constant bleating about every insult will sound foolish and petty. No one likes a crybaby.

Second, on the off chance that it does work, and yet another insult results in yet another firing, the chilling effect can do more harm than good in stifling legitimate political discourse.

The bottom line here is that any insult that is based on physical appearance, whether specific to an individual (probably acceptable) or based on gender or race or some other broadly applicable characteristic (almost certainly unacceptable), is a weak and ineffectual insult, no matter how cleverly constructed. Physical appearance is not something we can alter all that dramatically, and almost never provides real insight into the thoughts of the person.

It is the ultimate ad hominem attack, and reflects poorly on the person making the insult.

So David Emerson made fun of Jack Layton's smile, at least according to Jamie Elmhirst. Not a big deal in of itself, in my judgment. But it is indicative of a recurring pattern within the Liberal Party of slinging insults, whether it is against parents who want to be entrusted with their own children, or against Asians, or against homosexuals, or against people who don't vote Liberal, or against people who don't live in Toronto, or against men with thinning hair and toothy grins.

At this rate, just about everyone is going to be at the receiving end of an insult from a senior member of the Liberal Party before January 23. Some insults will cost people their jobs, others won't. But either way, the people being insulted are going to have think long and hard if it was their intention to vote Liberal.

And if you weren't insulted, look around at your friends and family. Were any of them collateral damage from a Liberal attack? How did they feel? Then look at your ballot again. It is a secret ballot, of course, and with reason. But if it wasn't, would you still feel comfortable voting Liberal, and then facing your friends and family, insulted and angry as they are? I know I would factor that into my decision.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:49 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 734 words, total size 5 kb.

Sheila Copps in the Sun today about Mike Klander:

Klander, the son of hard-working immgirant steelworker parents in Hamilton, rose to great heights in the Liberal party by working hard to fit in. In the Martin backrooms, fitting in tends to mean "old boy" and bathroom humour, and ensuring your place is secured by tearing others down.

I remember when, as a young high school student, he came into my office interested in knowing more about the Liberal party. His father was a diehard New Democrat, but Mike thought the Liberal Party might be a more realisitic way to help people. As a young man, he wanted to get involved to make things better. Over the years, it became simply about the win.

His blog struck me as stunning in its ignorance. No depth there, simply hate. Martin good, everyone else bad.

Is this what belonging to the Liberal Party does to a person? Are they all like this? Are these the Canadian "values" Paul Martin keeps blabbing on about defending? If so, I think I'll look for new values elsewhere. Canada can keep those values, if that's what it means to be Canadian.

If that is the language the Martin Liberals expect to see in print in a pre-election blog, what do they say in private?

I wonder whether it would even occur to the Martin backroom boys that there was anything wrong with the Chow-Chow "separated at birth" posting -- more likely, they would pass it around, smirking at anyone who did not get it.

The same backroom boys use the race card when it will play well for them. "Trade one Sikh candidate for a Ukrainian as long as it will get votes andkeep them quiet," is a view I have actually heard expressed by a key Martin organizer.

Are you a parent with a teenage son or daughter thinking of joining the Young Liberals? Worse yet, already a card-carrying member? Be worried. Be just as concerned as if you caught your son or daughter wearing gang colours.

There is a toxic quality to the Liberals today. It will take time for it to drain away, and then only of the Liberals are ejected into the political wilderness for a long, long time. If that doesn't happen, and your son or daughter begins to move up into the mid to upper echelons of the party, don't be surprised if that poison starts to change them.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:18 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

An interesting sidebar to the Mike Klander story.

In a feeble attempt to pull a reverse Dan Rather, a prominent Liberal blogger flogged the notion that the Klander blog was an elaborate fraud.

95% sure it was a fraud, he said.

I hope he's 95% sure of a Liberal win on January 23.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:21 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 3 kb.

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper commenting on the Mike Klander affair:

"The Liberal party is coming into this election with a corruption report from a judge.

"I don't think it helps itself by running a campaign of personal attack and slur, which is what it has been doing - comparing political opponents to animals ... I think this has gotten a bit out of hand."

Klander had posted pictures of Chow and the dog on his Internet weblog -- or blog -- under the heading Separated At Birth.

The blog also contained an offensive reference to NDP Leader Jack Layton, who is married to Chow.

During a campaign stop Tuesday on Vancouver Island, Harper said he hadn't seen the blog but his wife filled him in.

Hold the phone! Does Laureen Harper read other blogs too?

Maybe this one?!

Crap, and I haven't neatened up or anything. My search button is still screwed up (uses the old colour scheme, but I can't figure out why), I still don't like the order of my side panels, and I really should try to find a better picture of Gordon Sinclair.

Don't you hate it when guests come over and you realize that you should have cleaned up an hour ago like you promised yourself? Now it's too late.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:02 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

Having pondered the Mike Klander affair, and the consequences, both from a serious and a humorous point of view, I know what is really bothering me.

As you can tell from my posts, my concern is less about Klander's comments, but rather with the consequences for Klander (forced to resign), and how that compares to the lack of consequences for Scott Reid and John Duffy over the "beer and popcorn" gaffe.

As I considered in an earlier post, Klander's comments were worse than Reid's and Duffy's, but were voiced in a semi-private forum, while Reid and Duffy were speaking on national TV in their capacity as spokespersons for the Liberal Party, explaining official policy to all Canadians who will vote on January 23.

An argument can certainly be made than Reid and Duffy deserved no less punishment than Klander.

That lack of consistency is worrisome to me, moreso than the unguarded thoughts of one Liberal functionary (though an important one, and one whose opinions bear examining for what they say about the Liberal Party as a whole).

What does this lack of consistency say about Paul Martin's leadership, about his style of management? I'm not so much worried about government policy. Government decisions are subject to a form of political inertia, especially in bureaucratic democracies -- no matter how fickle the leader, government policy can hardly change on a dime.

But inside the Prime Minister's Office, the Liberal Party executive, even cabinet -- if Paul Martin is seen as unpredictable and the sort of leader who plays favourites, then the ability of those organizations to function is in jeopardy. Resentment builds against those who seem to avoid the consequences suffered by others. Fear dogs every decision -- fear of making a mistake, and not having the protection enjoyed by those favoured by the prime minister to survive a mistake.

Soon, only safe non-decisions are ever made. Risk-taking, a critical element to leadership, is never seen again. The Liberal Party in government will soon lose the ability to attract smart Canadians, since the smart ones will realize there are better places to make a living. The ranks of government will be filled with those whose only skill is being able to avoid trouble.

Should Klander have been fired? Yes, I think so. But my opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the opinion of the highest reaches of the federal Liberal Party, and especially the opinion of Paul Martin. Right now, based on the evidence, it's not clear that he holds an opinion. Unless he can coherently explain why Reid and Duffy have avoided any consequences for their poor choice of words in light of the Klander episode, I can only surmise that there is no way to predict ahead of time how Paul Martin is going to respond to the actions, and errors, of his people.

That's fine for me. I don't work for Paul Martin. But if I did, I'd certainly want to understand how "the system" works, and why I should continue to work under it.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:36 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

Are you a high ranking member of the Liberal Party of Canada? Are you bursting with racist and homophobic slurs to level at the enemies of Canada, that is, anyone who isn't voting for you?

But you're not sure how to express yourself. You could blog it, but will you be promoted or will you be fired? Who can tell? There's no way to tell, is there?

Because, let's be honest, you have no idea if you'll pull a Reid and have our fickle and unpredictable leader, Paul Martin, go to the mat for you, or if you'll get Klandered.

Well, now you can blog to your heart's content, and not worry about entering yourself into the praise-me-fire-me lottery run by Paul Martin.

How? By using the new Liberal Party Blog-o-matic!

Are you on your way between Liberal strategy meetings? Need to capture some thoughts? The Liberal Blog-o-matic comes in a travel size as well!

Scott Reid is never far from his on the Liberal campaign bus:

The Liberal Blog-o-matic! Your best insurance against having your political future decided by Paul Martin, short of joining the Conservative Party, of course.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:23 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

An interesting tidbit that I've only seen printed in the Vancouver Sun about Mike Klander, the Liberal party executive forced to resign when his blog containing homophobic and racist comments was made public:

[Liberal Party spokesman Stephen Heckbert] said Klander resigned on his own initiative and was not pushed. However, in an interview with CanWest News Service just before he submitted his resignation, Klander said his only plan was to apologize to Chow.

It's a minor thing...or is it? If Klander was told he had to go, one wonders if he spared a thought for Liberal Communications Director Scott Reid and for Liberal Party strategist John Duffy, both of whom kept their jobs after the "beer and popcorn" gaffe.

You could forgive him for thinking he was being treated unfairly. Klander said some pretty nasty things, but it was via a personal blog, and he was not speaking for the Liberal Party in an official capacitty.

Reid and Duffy said a stupid thing, not as nasty, but then they said it while being interviewed on national television, and while acting as spokespersons for the Liberal Party.

So which is worse? Klander for saying something very bad semi-privately, or Reid and Duffy for saying something pretty bad extremely publicly?

The fact that Klander was fired (or forced to quit), while Reid and Duffy continue to work at the centre of the campaign, means that Paul Martin thinks there was a difference.

What that difference was is probably subtle, perhaps too subtle for the likes of you, and me, and Mike Klander to fathom. I expect that over the next little while, bloggers and professional columnists alike will ponder that question. Maybe we'll get lucky and one of us will stumble into an understanding of Paul Martin's standards for acceptable behaviour for officials associated with the Liberal Party of Canada.

Until someone does, I bet more than a few Liberal workers will be wondering whether this mistake or that is a firing offense or a forgiveable misstep. That kind of second-guessing can't be good for party morale, what with everyone looking over their shoulders. Well, serves them right for not being as clever and subtle as Paul Martin.

But here's a scary thought. What if the difference between Klander on the one hand, and Reid and Duffy on the other, is too subtle and clever for Paul Martin to understand?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:39 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

The riding of Toronto-Danforth is represented by NDP Leader Jack Layton.

The riding president for Toronto-Danforth for the Ontario Liberal Party is the now famous Mike Klander, recently forced to resign as executive vice-president of the federal Liberal Party, Ontario branch, over the personal and racist attacks he made against Jack Layton, and his wife, Olivia Chow.

I wonder how much longer before the provincial Liberal Party is forced to clean house like its federal counterpart.

Of course, Klander might not be all that worried about riding politics. His entire business is based on being seen as a smart operator with friends in high places helping others solve their problems:

Mike Klander is a highly specialized and well respected government relations consultant assisting clients both at Queen’s Park in Ontario and at the Federal Government level in Ottawa.

Whether managing a crisis, proposing a new initiative, monitoring legislation, or simply building political relationships, Klander and Associates can help your business or association navigate through government.

With over fifteen years of experience in federal and provincial politics, Mike Klander brings with him an innate understanding of Canada’s political process and an extensive national network. Prior to establishing his own government relations practice Mike held several senior positions within the Liberal Party.

As a senior political organizer Mike played a significant role in building Paul Martin’s Leadership organization in Ontario. Prior to joining Martin’s team, Mike helped build a national organization for Brian Tobin and also served as his Campaign Manager in Ontario.

As Executive Director of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) Mike was responsible for managing the day to day affairs of the Federal Liberal Party in Ontario. In that capacity he served as Ontario Campaign Director during the 2000 Federal Election Campaign. In his eight years with the organization he held several other positions including Field Organizer, and Director of Field Operations.

An organizer in every federal and provincial election campaign since 1988 Mike has developed a comprehensive understanding of the political process and how government operates. Building on that experience, he established Klander and Associates; an independent government relations practice representing clients both in Ottawa and at Queen’s Park.

Mike has served and continues to assist numerous clients including Research in Motion, Inco, BFI Canada, Imperial Tobacco Canada, The Greater Toronto Home Builders Association, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Air Canada Pilots Association.

As a volunteer Mike sits on the Board of the Ontario Special Olympics and Rose Cherry's Home for Kids. He is also Executive Vice-President of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario).

He holds an Honours degree in Political Science from McMaster University.

I hope he lands on his feet.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:51 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

The poorly chosen words of a high-ranking executive of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) has resulted in his resignation.

The web site has already been updated.

Clearly, the Liberal Party would like to forget Mike Klander.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:59 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

What would you think if the second-most important member of the Liberal Party machine in Ontario held these views? And publicly proclaimed them?

• Olivia Chow looks like a dog
• Steven Fletcher is funny when he's mad because he's a cripple
• Harper and Duceppe are gay or something
• Ontario voters outside of Toronto, like Barrie, represented by a Liberal MP, are unimportant and a joke
• People are stupid, pity politicians who have to pretend to be nice
• Jack Layton is an asshole

Mike Klander is the Executive Vice-President for the "Paul Martin 's Liberals" for the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario). These are from the Google cache of his blog, just deleted because he was caught.

I'm not sure what you are thinking, but I'm thinking a very public firing is in order.

I think that makes the Jack Layton comments (given that Layton is popular in Ontario and part of the Liberal strategy is to make NDP voters feel comfortable casting their vote for the Liberal Party) and the attitude towards Ontario cities like Barrie (and presumably anywhere else outside of the 416 area code) particularly rich.

[A liberal socialist blogger is disgusted too.]

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:53 PM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 1620 words, total size 13 kb.

1 I've had a few words to say over at my place about the KKKlander controversy--which appears to be slipping under the corporate media radar at present. But, Angry, come on--all this indignation when Kate McMillan has called for a return to residential schools for Indian kids and you yourself have posted something like this? http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/122956.php Why is racism not worth an indignant post when it's conservatives expressing it?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at December 26, 2005 04:28 PM (bsBSr)

2 Kate is the executive vice-president of...what exactly?

Posted by: Angry in T.O. at December 26, 2005 04:44 PM (Bwk6V)

3 She's probably more prominent (and influential) than Klander. Hell, that goes for you, too. Tell me honestly: had you ever heard of this gink before Wells blew the gaff on him? Happy New Year, by the way.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at December 26, 2005 04:47 PM (bsBSr)

4 Dr.Dawg, How fitting to go looking for moral equivalents. Lowering the bar is what the current Liberal regime thrives on. BTW, there's a difference between elevating the discussion and asking hard questions without fear of violating political over sensitivities, and bringing the conversation into the gutter with over the top, in your face inhumane insensitivities. If you can't see the difference I feel sorry for you. Finally, Kate is a private citizen. We're all free to espouse whatever views we believe in. But this liberal filth is at the top of the Liberal party. You know, the party that wants to continue to run our country.

Posted by: Biff at December 26, 2005 05:02 PM (Y1ykG)

5 I figure the bar should be at the same height for any prominent figure. If there's any suggestion here that I'm a Liberal apologist, btw, go over to my place and think again.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at December 26, 2005 05:05 PM (bsBSr)

6 The question is not about his views, as such, or his right to hold them and express them publicly on a blog for over 7 months, but how the Liberal Party thought it appropriate to make him the VP of the Ontario party machine. Did they not know? Or did they not care? Or did they share his attitudes? [Added to post]

Posted by: Angry in T.O. at December 26, 2005 05:22 PM (Bwk6V)

7 My view? The Libs simply don't care. They have no values and no standards, other than getting into power. Loyalty to the party (the PMO) is the only criterion.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at December 26, 2005 05:25 PM (bsBSr)

8 I've spent a lot of time on this, digging up all of the previous cached pages from this slug's site that are still available. The reason I've put so much energy into this, instead of being with my family on Christmas Day, is that I think Klander's Krap is unacceptable for anyone - and if I can make that point by pointing out that a man who sits in the inner circle of Paul Martin's closest advisors holds these views, then I will do so. This wasn't just one joke. This guy, month after month, in full view of his Liberal cronies and friends, while using his influence to make a living as a lobbyist for large companies, including a large tobacco company, spewed out hate and filth. It's unacceptable. And we need to say so. Dr.Dawg, you want to point out someone with this major an indiscretion, with that kind of power, and I'll take that person on as well. It's wrong no matter who does it. That doesn't mean we minimize it for the one who did do it.

Posted by: Patrick at December 26, 2005 06:07 PM (u0igE)

9 Angry--a case of noblesse oblige--the Liberals consider themselves so far above us peasants we dare not question their right to state what they want to. If we said anything remotely similar we would be before a HRT before we could think twice. If the MSM does not pick this up we will know exactly where they stand on this issue. It again will be up to the bloggers to make it known across Canada--it will be up to you to let Canadians know what the Liberals really think about us, the taxpayer. A man is thrown in jail because he tells the truth about the liberal involvement in Haiti, but we are supposed to accept this slaging of Ms. Chow, Fletcher et al as the voice from on high. I am not accepting it and will do all in my power to get these disgusting dictators removed from power.

Posted by: George at December 26, 2005 06:09 PM (n1kfo)

10 I appreciate your work, Patrick, and there's no way I'm minimizing anything with respect to the wretched Klander. I'm just a little bemused by the outpouring of outrage from Conservative partisans who are not aboe a little racism of their own on occasion. I find this outrage a bit opportunistic. But that is in no way, shape or form an excuse for this Liberal operative.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at December 26, 2005 06:10 PM (bsBSr)

11 I'm NOT a "liberal blogger." I'm a socialist. Just for the record.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at December 26, 2005 06:12 PM (bsBSr)

12 Sorry to monopolize this thread, Angry. Klander has just stepped down, amid a flurry of spin. Two articles have now appeared in Google News, from Canoe and CFRA.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at December 26, 2005 06:27 PM (bsBSr)

13 To hear the Liberal spokesperson tell it, this guy had nothing to do with the Liberal's election campaign. Why, Executive Vice-President is a positively unofficial position. Hardly worth mentioning. Nothing to see here. Move on. Move on.

Posted by: Patrick at December 26, 2005 06:52 PM (u0igE)

14 If Klander had lasted the day it would have been a sign that the Liberals are in significant disarray. Dr.Dawg is being disingenuous in suggesting that Klanders opinions are not very newsworthy. If he were Executive Vice President of the CPC, this would be the lead story in all media today. Unfortunately this story will go virtually unreported. It's too bad whoever released this story didn't know enough to wait until Jan 3rd.

Posted by: Terry Gain at December 26, 2005 06:55 PM (FbbEI)

15 "Dr.Dawg is being disingenuous in suggesting that Klanders opinions are not very newsworthy." I suggested nothing of the kind. Are conservatives usually this poor at reading comprehension?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at December 26, 2005 07:11 PM (bsBSr)

16 Why is it racist to suggest Olivia Chow is a dog?

Posted by: Bear at December 26, 2005 07:47 PM (qn6c6)

17 Dr Dawg, I seem to remeber that two Backbench MP's were exciorated and the CPC campaign destroyed the last election for some odd views. They were not the views of the leader, they were not the official views of the party BUT they were lead story everywhere. So if you see the conservative side of the ledger howling for his head, a Liberal Party official, that is close to the Prime Minister and does work for him (see Wells and Kinsella, I dont think that is surprising. The equivalency you seek is not the correct one, the equivalency is the attention given to White and Gallant the last election. Besides he deserves what he gets on the sole basis of stupidity. In the position that he is (oops was) in, that he would publish something in "the public square" (the internet) and be surprised that it gets found just shows what a bonehead he is. Save the concern for someone who has truely been wronged by gossip and the hounds of the blogosphere. Klander is not one them.

Posted by: Stephen at December 26, 2005 07:54 PM (upnxu)

18 This little window into the Liberal backroom mind reminds me of the Murphy tapes, which were a window a lot more scary. Someone this crude and stupid is not scary because he is so crude and stupid. If you examine the Murphy tapes and analyse what he was really saying in a more careful manner, this Murphy window into the Liberal backroom (the real liberal room) mindset will strike you as a lot more scary. unfortunately, the ethnic envelope surrounding Murphy (English Ontario ethnicity in this case) somehow changed the issue of the Murphy tapes and their implications about how Canada is governed, into the Grewal tapes issue. Murphy expressed himself in the careful manner that make any plot seem palatable to his group so long as it is expressed with appropriate form. And so the national Ontario English-ethnic media did not even notice that the real story was not that he was exposed, but the implications for democratic values in canada in what he was actually saying in such careful use of language. The analysis of the klander bog should also have happened with the Murphy tapes, which are a lot more scary in implication, and given his position.

Posted by: edward mills at December 26, 2005 08:18 PM (c4Z9/)

19 "if klanders had lasted the day"--he resigned--he was not fired--so the MSM can give the impression that he was 'just a volunteer' instead of the head Ontario organizer--he even listed his industry as 'government'--do none of them do proper investigation--have they never used google if nothing else? This is getting worse by the minute--Liberal spin is like a corkscrew--just keeps burying the truth in a deeper hole.

Posted by: George at December 26, 2005 08:20 PM (n1kfo)

20 Will Klander resign from this board? Don Cherry would be available for an interview? http://www.rosecherryshome.ca/board/board.html

Posted by: maz2 at December 26, 2005 08:38 PM (6nVhD)

21 KKKlander's politically incorrect rhetoric has put on public display the Liberal's ideological dual standard...one for their inside party elite and a zero tolerance one for non liberals..THAT is the embarrassment, not so much the infantile musings and stupid impropriety of another sandbox Liberal apparatchik. It's about Liberal hypocrisy stupid!

Posted by: W.L.Mackenzie Redux at December 26, 2005 08:59 PM (sdMWv)

22 Dr, Dawg says But, Angry, come on--all this indignation when Kate McMillan has called for a return to residential schools for Indian kids and you yourself have posted something like this? Dr.Dawg Tell me honestly: had you ever heard of this gink before Wells blew the gaff on him? Dr.Dawg "Dr.Dawg is being disingenuous in suggesting that Klanders opinions are not very newsworthy." Terry Gain I suggested nothing of the kind. Dr.Dawg Yes Dr. Dawg, QED -a disingenuous socialist- caught red handed, oh my, how appropriate.

Posted by: at December 26, 2005 10:14 PM (FbbEI)

23 Leave the socialist alone. He can't help it. Being divorced from reality is a prerequisit to being a socialist. Now, carry on Dr.Dawg.

Posted by: at December 26, 2005 10:35 PM (Y1ykG)

24 Anyone wanna wager that this won't even make the news for more than 1 day? We shall find out how deep the rot is within our media when all we hear is silence tomorrow. Perhaps? Or am I being too cynical?

Posted by: Mike Schmidt at December 26, 2005 10:40 PM (dvb92)

25 "Or am I being too cynical?" Mike Schmidt No, you're not being too cynical Mike. In fact, you just hit a home run.

Posted by: Terrry Gain at December 26, 2005 11:22 PM (FbbEI)

26 Unfortunately the legs on this issue will be very short. There has been nothing in the last 12 years to suggest a modicum of objectivity when it comes the Liberal party and the MSM. Racism, homophobia and knuckle-dragging crudeness; for it to be front page news it must be them thar red-neck Reformers and their hidden agenda!!! Does anyone believe for a moment that Mike Duffy would show the stones, let alone journalistic integrity to follow up on this story? Of course not, he would be shunned by those morally superior intelligentsia of the Left. That's all that matters to a self-inflated little windbag like him.

Posted by: Paul at December 26, 2005 11:24 PM (nlevv)

27 I am thorougly amazed. While it is on the home page, the article is on CTV's website. Most unusual...because Bell/CTV has some close connections to the Liberal Party. Yippeee, the internets work!

Posted by: Mike Schmidt at December 26, 2005 11:33 PM (dvb92)

28 Dr. D, when I asked to be removed from McLelland's Canadian Blog Awards because of his "F*ck the Jews" post, I had all sorts of people accuse me of taking his post out of context. Here you are, doing the same with Kate's. Given the slime I've seen spew from MWW on any number of topics (although the purely toxic sludge seems to focus on SDA), I wonder why you would choose to defend MWW? And I would also argue that though Kate may be well-known in the blogging world, few on the street would know either her name or the name of her blog, the latter of which, if you replace "blog" with "party" can't be said for Klander. Forgive the rambling, Tylenol Flu & Cold at play with my few remaining brain cells.

Posted by: Candace at December 27, 2005 12:32 AM (cnGRY)

29 I don't know how long this will have legs, but I do know Angry's views on the subject will be seen by a lot of people. Bourque is now linking to this site, asking the question "WHY DID PAUL MARTIN HANG ON TO MIKE KLANDER?" A very good question. How would you sum up the answer, Angry?

Posted by: Patrick at December 27, 2005 01:02 AM (u0igE)

30 Which one is Olivia?

Posted by: at December 27, 2005 02:40 AM (WeDiy)

31 The one with the fur coat dummy.

Posted by: at December 27, 2005 02:41 AM (WeDiy)

32 So many stooges for Martin to throw off the plane and so few parachutes to give them. Good-bye Paul, hello Stephen. Vote Harper, save Canada.

Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle at December 27, 2005 07:21 AM (uStux)

33 I didn' claim that l'affaire Klander wasn't newsworthy--in fact, in the part of my post accidentally left out by my anonymous interlocutor,I wondered aloud why the corporate media were being so quiet about it (of course, it's front-page news today, probably backing up the theory that only interns were around on the holidays): "I've had a few words to say over at my place about the KKKlander controversy--which appears to be slipping under the corporate media radar at present." I wanted the full glare of media publicity on this guy, and I guess that's happened. But I found it quaint, and still do, that the Right is waxing so indignant about this racist yahoo, when they are so silent about the same kind of thing within their own ranks. There is more than a little opportunism here. Angry suggested that I was comparing apples and oranges by juxtaposing Klander and Kate McMillan. What official role does Kate have, he asked. My response--taken somewhat out of context by the interlocutor mentioned above--was that Kate is probably as well-known in her way as Klander. Neither are household words--I'd never heard of Klander before this all blew up--but each has a public "constituency." Kate even got mentioned by David Warren a few days back. Candace states that I quoted out of context, but I did not. I gave the complete quotes, and links. The sentiments expressed were, given the history of First Nations in Canada, grossly insensitive at the very least. And the first link I provided, to an earlier post of mine, references a snickering comment about Indians being banned from a shopping mall. MWW has a good deal of background knowledge and has published widely, even in the National Post. I think she's let Kate get pretty far under her skin, but the feeling, I gather, is mutual. What prompted me to post this time, though, was Kate's libel threat against another member of the CBC Round Table, just for linking to an MWW post. That's going a trifle far. In any case, and on another topic, get well soon, Candace. New Year's Eve is coming, and you wouldn't want to miss out on the fun!

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at December 27, 2005 08:48 AM (bsBSr)

34 Two points 1) Kate has no occicial access to power, unl;ike Klander had. That is the concern. Any yahoo can hold whatever views they wish but we expect those in power or near it (one or two degrees) to hold reposnsible views. The difference is clear and glaring 2) Dr. Dawg if you wish to get into a slanging match with Kate be my guest. But reading MWW interpretation of Kate is hardly the way to do it. I would suggest you read and link only to the original article. When I first heard about it a few months ago, I was unable to find the originals (my bad searchin ability) and Kate supplied me with the originals. I read them. Insensitive, maybe in the way O Henry was or any many other forms of political commentary are. Racist, hardly. They were less offensive than the Klander remarks. Of course I thought community standards and decency didn't matter anymore ;-> But to repeat, Kate is elected only by herself, exercises no power and is not officially in a position to exercise the power of society. If people in power choose to read, listen and quote her that is their responsibility. There is no equivalency here. Klander did the right thing and withdrew. And Dr D I would remeber this becasue inevitably there will be a boneheaded comment by a conservative in a position of power. When that happens you will be free to call all of the people here on the carpet and ask them to be accountable. If that happens I would encourage you to do it. I would be doing the same.

Posted by: Stephen at December 27, 2005 09:22 AM (upnxu)

35 "I am thorougly amazed. While it is on the home page, the article is on CTV's website. Most unusual...because Bell/CTV has some close connections to the Liberal Party" - Mike Schmidt Mike, I actually think the CTV is doing a pretty good job being impartial or relatively friendly to the CPC compared to Canwest. The Aspers Canwest network and the CBC are the major culprits on hiding junk like this. Whistleblower is a great division of CTV too. They crack open many big stories (and even pounded away on ITscam quite a bit. Just my personal opinion.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at December 27, 2005 09:53 AM (kYWsy)

36 Stephen: Maybe I should have used Rob Anders as my example instead of Kate. In any case, rather than making direct equivalences, I was more interested in what still appears to me to be a bit of an anomaly: conservatives everywhere rising up in righteous wrath over racist remarks. You'll have to admit that this doesn't happen every day. Now, about Anders...oh, well.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at December 27, 2005 11:38 AM (bsBSr)

37 dr d, well yes there have been blue moons recently :-> but as I said in my first post, this is payback for the crucifiction the Liberals put the conservatives through with Cheryl Gallant and Randy White. In both cases neither represented a formal party policy position and arguably were further from power than a someone who has worked in the PMO. When you look at it in that light then you understand the conservative wrath and delight in this. I am sure there are other examples but these come to mind. All I can say is there better not be any dinosaur eruptions from the CPC this election becasue the hellfire after this and Scott Reid will be immense.

Posted by: Stephen at December 27, 2005 04:28 PM (upnxu)

38 You idiots! Your Conform party sucks the hind tit for a good reason! Damned bassackward fools wishing to control everyone! Good thing this shit isn't in print, But it would make great asswipe!

Posted by: TICKEDMEOFF at December 27, 2005 09:28 PM (p158t)

39 Aw come on folks, you're sure being hard on Klander and Reid and look how upset tickedmeoff is. You have to understand that being at the center of the Liberal braintrust and responsible for setting the moral compass for an entire nation is tough work. The boys were just unwinding a little before they venture out amongst the great unwashed to defend "Canadian Values"!!!! Bring on the flags!!!!

Posted by: Syncrodox at December 28, 2005 02:18 AM (Uagor)

40 Dr. D: "Maybe I should have used Rob Anders as my example instead of Kate." I guess that would have invalidated your original argument, would it not? Or did MWW take Anders on as well?

Posted by: Candace at December 29, 2005 02:06 AM (cnGRY)

41 I used to think the NDP were the most detestable leftist on the planet but lately the liberals have filled that spot. This Klander A hole typifies liberal thinking and contempt for anyone not in the elite liberal sphere. Lets us fervently hope they can be sent to where they belong well and truly out of office.Incidentally there are people who can raise a baby in this country without some massive government bottom wiping and indoctrination program.

Posted by: Ger at January 02, 2006 01:42 AM (6mUkl)

42 A young man named Paul bought a donkey from an old farmer for $100.00 The farmer agreed to deliver the horse the next day. When the farmer drove up the next day, he said, Sorry son, but I have some bad news...the horse is on my truck, but he's dead." Paul replied, "Well then, just give me my money back."The farmer said, "I Can't do that. I went and spent it already." Paul said, "OK then, just unload the horse anyway". The farmer asked, "What are ya gonna do with him?" Paul said, "I'm going to raffle him off." To which the farmer exclaimed, "You can't raffle off a dead horse!" But Paul, with a big smile on his face, said Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody that he's dead." A month later the farmer met up with Paul and asked, "What happened with that dead horse?" Paul said, "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and made a profit of $698.00." Totally amazed, the farmer asked, "Didn't anyone complain that you had stolen their money because you lied about the horse being dead?" And Paul replied, "The only guy who found out about the horse being dead was the raffle winner, when he came to claim his prize. So I gave him his $2 back plus $200 extra, which is double the going value of a horse, so he thought I was a great guy." Paul grew up and eventually became the Prime Minister of Canada, and no matter how many times he lied or how much money he stole from Canadian voters, as long as he gave them back some of the stolen money, most of them thought he was a great guy.

Posted by: Mopar at January 13, 2006 11:07 AM (PpU5j)

43 Well, that Earl Provost that nobody seems to know too much about turned out to be a senior advisor on Martin's campaign. He might be throwing his hat in to take over that seat for Klander now too. Hope he can run his campaign better than they ran Martin's. And maybe this guy will stay away from the blogs.

Posted by: QuietlyWatching at February 28, 2006 01:48 PM (s1SqN)

44 Cheap Jerseys Wholesale, 2012 Nike NFL Jerseys, MLB Jerseys, NHL Jerseys, NBA Jerseys Wholesale online shop

Posted by: Cheap Jets jerseys at November 29, 2012 11:23 AM (wmdzq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment