Super Article On Stronach In The Tyee

Again, this is over the top. There are no 'tory boys' slinging mud, there is a tory boy.Singular. He apologized the next day, but apparantly that's not good enough, even though 'whoring' has political connotations that go way back (this isn't a defense of his remarks though). Liberals were saying the same thing all over the media back when she was running for the conservative leadership. The other comment that she is a 'dipstick' and an 'attractive dipstick' is hardly calling her a 'slut'. Nobody even implied such a thing, but now people are trying to demonize the conservatives for vague implications. Do a search on Harper's remarks and they are actually quite blase about the whole thing.

That suddenly a single mother who inherits her daddy's millions and his company is an 'independant woman' of role model virtues is laughable and wouldn't even be discussed if she were a man (I didn't even know she and Peter MacKay were dating and I didn't even know Peter Mackay was single). This is yet another case of a sensational media trying to glamorize politics hoping that people will get interested in politics. Maybe I'm crazy but I don't find her that attractive anyway.

As the article points out, no, it most definitely WAS Tory boys, plural, slinging mud. Alberta MLA Tony Abbott was the one who said she "whored herself out for power"--and later had to apologize when she took him to task for it. But as this article then points out, "Saskatchewan Tory Maurice Vellacott told the Regina Leader-Post that 'Some people prostitute themselves for different costs or different prices.' " That makes TWO Tories accusing her of being a political whore. And how exactly are Harper's comments about Stronach's decisions simply being ambition rather than political principle, and that she isn't able to think about complex things, and MacKay's pouty comments not also mudslinging? The article does a good job of pointing all of that out and you must not have read it very carefully, Marcarc.

"Whoring" may have political implications going way back (I'd like to see your proof) but even if that's true the charge of being a "slut" or prostitute is more generally reserved for women both in daily life and politics, and it takes on a particularly nasty colour and meaning when applied so quickly and vehemently to a female politician. I don't recall anyone saying Peter Mackay "whored" himself to Stephen Harper or the Alliance when he sold out David Orchard, for example.

Worse, you sink immediately down to the same level yourself by criticizing Stronach for "inheriting her daddy's millions and company" while no one ever seriously questioned PM Paul Martin's ability to lead because of his own prominent "daddy", or any other male politician/CEO with a similar background for that matter.

I am no fan of the political agendas of monied CEOs, but it's true that the commentary around Stronach has been inherently sexist and that's something that says unfortunate things about the hurdles female politicians face in Canada in general and in the Conservative party in particular. This is an excellent article.

---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

It goes to show you though that some Conservatives still haven't learn anything after twelve years in opposition. Of course men can be whores and dipsticks. And of course the definition of a 'whore' can be applied to Belinda Stronach's actions (and not her character as an individual), but if you want to form the next government and act as such you need to show a little more maturity, a little more tact in the wording of your statements, and more restraint in lashing out. It's sad to see them stooping down to the Liberal's level, but it's worse to see how something may never change.

Much of this mess has to do with the media, but it mainly has to do with the Liberal's continuing policy of distraction. And it's worked hasn't it? Here we are talking about Belinda Stronach and sexism in politics, when there are more pressing priorities in front of us. I have to say, I disagree with their tactics, but I have to admit they work rather well.

Don't forget about Anne Mclellan's first remarks in introducing Stronach to the Liberal caucaus. Her first words were not about her courage or conviction, but that she she had "nice shoes". So sexism in politics goes both ways unfortunately.

I don't believe Belinda Stronach is a whore. But I do believe she is person who compromised her principles for personal gain. You can dress that up and call it what ever you like.

The furor over sexist remarks and the fact that her vote was significant for those of us who did not want an election now hide what I see as central issues that everyone is ignoring.

What is being lost is the issue of ethics. Stronach has never denied that she was fully supportive of Peter MacKay's decision to betray his promises to not just David Orchard but the vast majority of MacKay's own supporters who voted for MacKay because he promised to rebuild the Progressive Conservative Party. She had no problem pushing MacKay to go against the decisions of his own party. She had no problem with the kind of practices that were used to make sure the merger was accepted. She had no problem with the idea that Progressives would be considered "fringe elements" in the party, to borrow MacKay's words.

Am I the only one who has a problem with her ethics from the beginning? She was never a Progressive Conservative. She was a supporter of the Reform/Canadian Alliance and acted as the emissiary of some backroom group that bought the merger. Who financed the merger campaign? The two parties were each about four million dollars in debt at the time of the merger.

Was Stronach so ill-informed that she actually believed she could win the leadership of the party? Did she not know what the Reform/Canadian Alliance were all about and that the reason these parties were formed was that they could not work with Progressives? Who was the group behind her pushing for the merger? Were they Liberals worried about the potential for a renewed Progressive Conservative Party throught a coalition between the Orchard "red" Tories and the center right of the party?

In my mind she has done a great deal of damage and all that is being lost in the focus on sexist remarks and her star status.

I didn't read the article at the Tyee at all, it wasn't the article that I was referring to, I was talking about media and the tendency for political commentary to use language and images for political and not moral, ends. The Tyee almost always has excellent articles and I doubt that one is any different and I don't remember making any comments at all deriding the article.

If you want examples, you can just go to your nearest city library, political cartoons were frequently portraying various politicians as prostitutes on various issues. "Punch" and british newspapers actually had editorial cartoonists in London's red light district doing drawings. Canada inherited that grand tradition and although political correctness did away with the theme in the eighties it was frequent up until then, and is catching on again, particularly on the no holds barred web.

I don't think I need to be careful in my comments, people will take just about any comments out of context if it suits their argument. If somebody is equating my mentioning that "belinda stronach will inherit her money from her daddy" with comments about her prostituting herself then there's something seriously wrong with their logic circuits. I can't speak for anybody else but I have frequently written about the fact that Paul Martin was essentially given a political pass from his daddy and given his millions and his steamship lines from his sugar daddy Paul Desmarais-and I've seen some pretty raunchy cartoon renderings of that relationship from critics. Those are both essentially facts and whats good for the goose is surely good for the gander. I don't, however, think that every time a comment that may be derogatory is made against a female politician that it needs to be footnoted with 'oh, by the way this male politician...' that would be absurd, and certainly doesn't apply when we pillorize male politicians.

As far as Harper's comments go, they are positively glowing compared to what passes for political conversation. Sit down and watch question period straight through for a week or two and read the transcripts and if you aren't as ashamed of your politicians as I am...well, I'll give you your money back! The stakes here were extremely high, and what she pulled was extremely vicious by canadian political standards-even Bouchard never pulled anything like that. I will admit my error, OK, two nobodies from out west made sort of vague comments, however, the 'slut' comment is nowhere to be seen, and it is the term that is especially nasty and unforgiveable. And we can note how all of sudden nobody is even talking about what was said, but what they think was meant. The dipstick comment is almost laughable, I didn't even think that term was still around since Dukes of Hazard was cancelled. The term is positively banal and no doubt it was used in place of other terms that may have been risque. If the person was a male I guarantee that the language would be far more colourful.

Like I said, I'm not defending them, I don't even vote conservative and never have. But the putting words in peoples mouths and sensationalizing them only serves a political-not moral, purpose. Here I'm talking about Harper-not what members said. In the house when somebody says something out of line they are given 24 hours to apologize, and the apology was made. On the other side many people found Liberal remarks about the US president and americans to be far more hurtful than the above comments.

She was a nobody in politics who essentially used money to challenge the conservative leadership and then that publicity to run for a seat. It is quite correct that a politician like that be slammed, again though, it depends on how the slamming is done. It gets down to language though, 'prostituting' oneself is aggregious, however, of course there are male prostitutes and virtually nobody uses the term prostitutes anymore. However, I quite agree that the terms 'slut' and 'whore' are a different story. 'Slut' was never used by anybody, and 'whoring' has a slightly less, but still aggregious connotation. Again, I am not defending them, but attacking an entire party for the comments of one or even two members is hardly useful commentation. There are plenty of articles and comments here on various policies that are suitable ammunition, but it's hardly Harper's fault that two MP's don't think before they speak.

For crying out loud! Stronach flunked out of business school after a year. She's dense and rich. She was surrounded by "mentors" while she was "running" Magna just in case she screwed up. She spent 3 million of her own money on her leadership campaign and also spent her own money on her election campaign. This should be illegal, but it isn't.

If she had a brain, she would have never pulled a dumb stunt like crossing the floor to corruption. Politicians generally LEAVE parties that are accused of corruption, not join them.

And if she had any kind of ethics at all, she would have sat as an independent.

She is not worthy of public office.

Belinda has decided to believe in lying, cheating, stealing and corruption - the 'Canadian values' that the Liberal Party promotes. So she should expect people to say unkind things that include all the gender language constructs that are part of the english language.

If that's too much for the poor little rich girl, perhaps she should go back to being daddy's little girl at Magna and partying with Bill Clinton(a fine upstanding person that seems to share her 'values' - and we all know about Clinton's values, or lack thereof)

Well, I actually read the whole article and it's probably the first article on Tyee that I didn't like at all. It was virtually a perfect example of what I was talking about and it was only one guy who apologized for making the comment. The other guy from Ontario merely called her 'an attractive dipstick' which is far from sexist, and is half a compliment (though I still don't get this 'bombshell' stuff). So it is just tory 'boy'.

The story makes the gross claims, not the conservatives. Even reading it looking for nasty comments I could find none except by the author herself. The sexism comes from the author, not the conservatives, except for the Tony Abbott statement. Women can make sexist comments just as easily as men and this article really knocks down Tyee's credibility a notch with me.

Another interesting tidbit I found was this: "Conservative officials have pointed out that she jumped to the Liberals the day before a deadline set by her old party to pay $379,000 that they say she owes from her leadership campaign. The Tories say campaign rules required all candidates to turn over part of the cash they raised in their leadership bids to help finance the party."

So Tony Abbott made a nasty comment and apologized, this far from makes any kind of statement about the conservatives. To me, the 'mud slinging' is more like the comments of "retarded teenagers" that the 'journalist' makes based on what she thinks they might have meant by comments that are pretty light, partly, no doubt, because she's a woman and they know that comments they make would be fodder for the grist mill.

Nice comparison, bud.

Bill clinton (cigar smoking aside) had 10 times the values that the US's current monkey-in-charge has. Puh leese... I love these 'fox news' talking points.

Also the 'lying, cheating, corruption' lines, again, must be listening to those poorly worded ads on the radio for hours... sad, really.

I don't condone the actions of the libs or B.S. - however I do take exception to lame-ass 'typical' conservative nonny's rehashing the conservative claptrap.

Belinda Stronach had blind (albeit not particularly stealthful) ambition -ooh, so bad!!! Lets talk about Harper, you'd never characterize him as an ambitious, robotic career politician now would you. Noooo, thats right he's just mister warm and fuzzy.

The issue here is Belinda Stronach and the conservative party's reaction to her (mis)deeds. Even in the conservative party the one chided for 'stealth and treachery' is Peter MacKay, not Stephen. Her actions though are extremely aggregious, far worse than anything I've seen in a long time. But we shouldn't be surprised by a party that had a coup which 'forcefully retired' a PM for a replacement.

What still amazes me is that people see the Gomery thing as an anomoly. The party in power gives money to corporations and individuals through various grants and programs with lousy paperwork and through unaccountable bureaucrats. Said company benefits from the largesse and contributes some of that money back to the party as a donation-you don't think Ross Perot gave political donations after he made millions off the gun registry? Come on, they are 100% deductible. People, this is how the system operates and always has! The conservatives did it, the liberals did it. However, since Stephen Harper hasn't been in power obviously he hasn't done it, so you can't fault him on those points.

In fact, one of the things that killed him in Ontario is that although he wants to lower corporate taxes further (and if you're conservative then that makes sense) he wants to get government out of the subsidy business altogether (which also makes sense if your conservative). So its certainly easy to see why many would support such a policy-fewer government forays into the private sector means less programs of the Gomery type.

Again though, the real issue is the conservative reaction to Stronach's leaving, and by political standards considering the stakes, the comments are outright blase. The media treatment of events is not the party's fault, and I encourage people to read the tyee article. If you find as huge a leap between what was actually said and the author's claims about what they may have meant, welcome to the club. If Harper and McKay were sexist then there's literally nothing that can be said about her that's derogatory that isn't.

Abbott was not the only MP to make sexist comments. Maurice Vellacott claimed that Belinda Stronach prostituted herself. These comments coming from a clergyman hold even more meaning. He has refused to apologize even after been visited by another Conservative MP, Bill Casey, who asked him to apologize. Casey was very upset by his comments and his refusal to withdraw the comments.

You main condone this kind of language but at least some Conservatives find the comments of their colleagues unacceptable. I take it that you would be just as negative towards Bill Casey's reaction to his colleagues statement. You may disagree with Mr. Casey who said: "I think the country wants us to be a moderate party, and I think it's important that we don't slip back with comments like Maurice Vellacott's."

Sometimes political partisanship can go too far in condoning the unacceptable.

While I may not be able to fault Harper on what he has done in government because he has been there you can disagree with his world view. I can disagree with the fact Harper encouraged MacKay to break the promise he made to me and others to rebuild the Progressive Conservative Party as a "big tent party."

Harper gave MacKay the choice, not of creating a broad based coalition but of chosing between the Progressives, as represented by David Orchard, or the Canadian Alliance. In his speech on June 16, 2003 Harper made the choice clear and encouraged MacKay to break faith with his own supporters: "Either it will be a coalition with David Orchard or it will be a coalition with the Canadian Alliance." It was never both and Harper made that clear by rejecting Orchard for a membership in the party. MacKay may have been stupid enough to do what Harper demanded but that is another issue.

What role did Stronach play? She could not have played the role she did if Harper was not willing to become part of the process of betrayal. None of these, not Stronach, not MacKay, not Harper come out of the merger looking ethical in my eyes.

Harper has always presented his concept of leadership as that of a dictator ready to force his will on the unwilling. To quote Harper from an interview with the Alberta Report: "If I get a mandate, I'll use the full authority of the office to ensure things go the way I intend them to go." In my opinion, this attitude will destroy the Conservative Party and let us hope he will never get a chance to destroy Canada.

I see no difference between any of this and how all parties function. Those who do not follow what the party represents are cast out-that's our system. Both leading parties were picking and choosing members in ridings rather than relying on local constituents. Looking for ethics in politics is a pretty fruitless practise, the more ethical the party, the further they are from power.