Saturday, April 28, 2012

A History Lesson For Kady O'Malley And the PPG

It seems the parliamentry press gallery are beside themselves, outraged by the fact the PM, in reply to a question in the house of commons about Afghanistan, made note of the fact the NDP never supported the war putting an end to Hitler's reign of terror. In fact many of those in the press gallery rushed to mock the PM, led by Kady O'Malley. Now first off, I think the PM could have chosen his words better, and left the Hitler reference from his answer. On the other hand, I gleefully await the new standard of journalistic integrity Kady and her brethren are now seemimgly claiming should occur.

 So here is a little history lesson for those supposedly professional journalists.

1.  The NDP evolved from a merger of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). The CCF grew from populist, agrarian and socialist roots into a modern socialist party.

2. The Conservative Party of Canada (French: Parti conservateur du Canada), colloquially known as the Tories, is a political party in Canada which was formed by the merger of the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reform Party of Canada) and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in 2003.

So there you have it. Both the now governing Conservative Party of Canada and the NDP were formed as a result of a merger. Now, in keeping with Kady's line of defence about the NDP not even existing at the point in history the PM referred to in his answer, I would like to point out a few things, just to, you know, make sure Kady and her cohorts apply that same rule of journalistic integrity into comments made about the PM and his party. Soooooooooooooooooo:

1. Brian Mulroney was not a PM in the Conservative Party.
2. Mike Harris was not a Conservative Party MP.
3. Preston Manning was not the leader of the Conservative Party.
4. Karlheinz Schreiber did not have any dealings with the Conservative Party.
5. Private members bills that were put forth by the Reform or Alliance Party were made before the Conservative Party existed..
6. Awww, you know, I could go on and on. Suffice to say, I hope all Blogging Tories call out Kady when she tries to infer something sinister about the Conservative Party before they came into existence.


maryT said...

And the leader of the CCF/ndp, Woodsworth did oppose the war in Germany, aka HITLER. Maybe now the opposition/kady and all will quit making references to PMSH and Hitler.
And even after he opposed the war, he was kept on as leader.

Bec said...

Great rebuttal to these ridiculous Canadians.

If they aren't proud of their party fore-fathers, just say so but to deny their history is just intellectual ignorance. Which actually isn't a stretch.

Gabby in QC said...

Another bit of history ... the opposition parties and their cronies usually sneer at the now defunct Reform Party. But Wiki tells us this about the Reform movement in Canada (pre-Confederation).

"... In 1857, under the leadership of George Brown, the Clear Grits and left wing Reformers formed the Liberal Party in Canada West and, with the Parti rouge and Maritime Liberal parties, formed the basis for the Liberal Party of Canada. ..."

See? Even the Liberals can trace some of their roots back to Reformers. So, time to wipe away those sneers!

Sal Paradise said...

Missing in all of these contortions in historical how completely and utterly absurd it is of the Prime Minisiter of Canada to evoke Hitler in the House of Commons. Not excusable, but you could see something so foolish coming from the mouth of a backbencher, but here is the PM reaching far, far back into history, and making very subjective interpretations at that. It's a bit of a 'red herring'...and yet here you are: buying into it.

Keep sippin' the Kool Aid.

bertie said...

Your the one drinking cool aid Sal..You lefto weirdo,s cannot handle the truth.I suppose we can never speak about Leyton and his massage parlour visitations either.

Canajun said...

You conveniently left out the fact that although Woodsworth spoke out against the war his entire CCF caucus voted WITH the government. So it is somewhat misleading to pick out one speach by one person over 70 years ago as being representative of a current day political party - of any stripe. But the bottom line is if you are so intellectually limited that you feel the need to trot out Hitler to make your case, you've already lost the argument.

Gabby in QC said...

Hey, more history!
"... Then he [Bob Rae] focused his verbal knives on Stephen Harper, telling the audience they must do every-thing to get rid of the “dastardly government” and its “reign of error.” ..."

Bob Rae compares Stephen Harper's government to Robespierre's reign of terror!

Bob Rae even compares Stephen Harper to Dick Dastardly!!

paulsstuff said...

First off, I stated that the reference to Hitler was ill-advised, and shouldn't have been used. Secondly, the media and opposition have no problem linking the Conservative Party to the Reform, Alliance, Mulroney, Mike Harris, etc.

So why don't you tell me why it's ok for them to do so when jumping on the bandwagon when it's against the CP. Case in point, the PM is against reopening the abortion debate, and will vote against the the members bill. Yet they are all doing the chicken little telling us about the hidden agenda(TM) again.

Better yet, try actually reading some of the information Gabby has posted here. It might serve to educate you a little.

harebell said...

How many of the present day NDP were members of the CCF and others at the formation of the NDP?
How many members of the present day CPoC were members of the Reform/Alliance/PCs and even worked with Harris or Mulroney?
The big problem you have is you are trying to compare two quite different situations.
1) linking ideals across generations of very different people in very different times, and
2) Ideals held by the same people who are in a slightly different situation now.
It's not hard to see just how invalid your point is if you approach it logically.

paulsstuff said...

The CCF was against any military intervention, regardless the circumstance. Same with the NDP today. Layton, like his predecessors, was against military action, even when the actions in Afghanistan for example helped in the plight of women and children.

Sorry, but holding hands and singing kumbuya doesn't work when dealing with murderous dictators.

And again, Mulroney wasn't a part of the current party, though Kady and others tried to link the Schreiber dealings to the PM. Ditto for Mike Harris. Same with Preston Manning.

And isn't the whole defence now on the fact the NDP never existed at that point in time?

Bec said...

It's interesting how the defenders of the NDP position are missing the point of this post entirely.

It's history or it's a double standard and that's not hard to understand. To challenge the discussion with current day, living members is lost logic.
The point is what are the party's MAIN principles?
If you can go down the list and place a check mark, it's applicable. It's my assessment that they certainly apply when looking at the philosophical bones of the founding fathers.

And out of curiosity, why the outrage over this statement based in fact? I have heard the most disgusting, insulting statements made by the hundreds about George Bush and Americans while referring to conservatives.
Where are the outraged PPG then? just a simple question.........

harebell said...

The CCF wasn't against any military intervention regardless of the circumstances, its leader was. The rest of the CCF voted to go to war. What version of history are you reading?
As for, "Sorry, but holding hands and singing kumbuya doesn't work when dealing with murderous dictators." What was Harper doing in China on his little visit then?

paulsstuff said...

So Harper's opinion as leader doesn't matter, it's what the MP's think? As for China, Harper has done a far better job than most leaders of other countries regarding the issue of human rights. Ask the Dalai Lama.

Remember this? "In an unprecedented diplomatic breach, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao publicly upbraided Prime Minister Stephen Harper today for failing to visit China sooner."

And this? "NDP leader Jack Layton said Harper should not lecture China on its human rights record, considering the questions raised over whether Canada transferred prisoners to Afghan authorities where they were tortured.

What about this? "Date: Mon. Feb. 6 2012 8:59 PM ET

The official Opposition is calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to broaden trade talks with China beyond energy during his visit to the country this week."

So save me your hypocrisy of trashing the PM over China, when the NDP and other opposition parties have continually pushed him over trade with little regard to human rights.

By the way, the NDP never existed when Tommy Douglas brought in healthcare as premier. So why do they repeat they are the party that brought in Canada's national healthcare?

Bec said...

"By the way, the NDP never existed when Tommy Douglas brought in healthcare as premier........"

I started to post THAT in my comment @5:05pm but I couldn't factually confirm what my brain was telling me with real meat fast enough! Good job, I am glad you confirmed it first. :)

Gabby in QC said...

As Paul said, the PM could have chosen his words better. Or he could have added a "for pete's sake" to show annoyance with the question, which as usual was lifted right out of an article containing nothing more than predictable media speculation.

But as usual, the media and the opposition go off the deep end whenever the PM speaks off the cuff. Remember the shock! the horror! when the PM used the expression that it would be difficult to "get the toothpaste back in the tube" given the worsening situation in Egypt back in early 2011?

Anyone who was watching QP when he made the WWII remarks about the NDP would have seen the hint of a smirk on PM Harper's lips. And the ensuing remark he made -- "same difference" -- confirms for me that the PM knew full well the CCF had not yet evolved into the current NDP -- which reminds me of another double standard. How come no guffaws at the NDP STILL calling itself the NEW Democratic Party after 60 years? The Conservatives were laughed at when they used NEW for about a year after the 2006 election.

And I wonder … how many days did the NDP leadership candidates spend away from Parliament while still getting their salary? There was a hue & cry in the media when Senators Larry Smith & Michael Fortier decided to run for election, critics decrying the fact their salary would be helping their campaigns and they would not be fulfilling their senatorial tasks for about 35 days.

Why wasn’t the same objection raised for the NDP leadership candidates? The leadership lasted how many months? How many days did those running for the leadership spend away from the House? Why didn’t Jennifer Ditchburn file an ATI request to get that information? Maybe because it didn’t involve Conservatives.

Oh, no double standard, no, none at all.

paulsstuff said...

Thomas Clement "Tommy" Douglas, PC CC SOM (20 October 1904 – 24 February 1986) was a Scottish-born Baptist minister, and Canadian social democratic politician. He was elected to the Canadian House of Commons in 1935 as a member of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) party. He left federal politics to become the Saskatchewan CCF's leader and then the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan from 1944 to 1961. His government was the first social democratic government in North America, and it introduced the continent's first single payer, universal health care program. After setting up Saskatchewan's medicare program, he stepped down as premier and ran to lead the newly formed federal New Democratic Party, the National CCF's successor party.

harebell said...

One of the reasons why politics is so corrupt in this country is the fealty to the party that party politics demands.
"The NDP did it too," is no excuse in my mind, just a further condemnation of the system of parties.
As for being upbraided by the Chinese, ha ha he sure made up for it since. A person who wouldn't kow tow to dictators would have continued to refuse to meet them. He didn't refuse to meet them out of principel because he later did. Or maybe he had other principles because they didn't like his first ones.

paulsstuff said...

Harper has taken a harder stance than any other government leader in the world. Yet you can't bring yourself to admit it. The fact the opposition parties and canadian media continue to disparage the PM for not coddling the Chinese government goes right over your head.

By the way, Hillary Clinton is enroute to China today. Obama sent her there. Please let me know how bad Obama is for doing this. Is he unfit to be president?

And I notice you still won't address the fact the NDP never existed when Douglas introduced healthcare as premier, something the federal NDP takes credit for. So using the line of reasoning given the PM's comments in question period not being applicable as the party never existed, do you admit the NDP should no longer try and take credit for Canada's health care system.

harebell said...

I don't address the NDP/Douglas issue because i never raised it and shiny objects are not my thing.
All I said was, "The CCF wasn't against any military intervention regardless of the circumstances, its leader was. The rest of the CCF voted to go to war. What version of history are you reading?"
Which is factually spot on.
I noticed Clinton is on route to China, but that is to be expected when China owns all the US markers and might call them in at any time. When somebody owns you, you tend to be beholding.
Again why is Harper sucking up to dictatorships again?
Try and stay focused and not introduce things that I never claimed.