Sgro says she was wooed by Tories

[tuvor]

OTTAWA (CP) — A Liberal who resigned from cabinet amid scandal says she and several colleagues were recently approached to cross over to the Conservative party.

The allegation from former immigration minister Judy Sgro comes one day after Ruby Dhalla also said she was approached to join the Tories.

Both are Toronto-area MPs, and Sgro says the Tories have launched a drive to poach converts in large urban centres where their elected presence is weak.

Sgro says she was stunned when a prominent local Tory approached her with an offer early last month.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/510897.html

[daleo]

1. They are denying it, so it's probably true

Based on the similarities between Harper and Bush.

[Telly Savalas]

2. This is the same Judy Sgro who the Tories decried as being

corrupt and unethical during the last government? Or are there two Judy Sgro's in the House of Commons?

[glarius]

3. Judy Sgro's name was cleared when her accuser admitted to lying.

Harjit Singh, the pizza shop owner who signed an affidavit accusing her of offering help for him to stay in Canada in exchange for pizza deliveries and help on her election campaign, admitted he lied.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Accuser_admits_he_lied,_former_Canadian_immigration_minister_cleared_of_wrongdoing

[Telly Savalas]

4. I know that.

But the Tories dragged her name through the mud pretty badly before the situation was cleared up.

I wasn't trying to attack Sgro, but rather point out that it's pretty shameless of Harper and his cronies to try to woo her despite what they've said about her.

[glarius]

10. Sorry.....I misunderstood.

:)

[Telly Savalas]

12. Not a problem.

I wasn't totally clear in the first post.

:hi:

[MrPrax]

5. On the same page...

Dallaire endorses Ignatieff for Grit leader?????

SAINT JOHN, N.B. (CP) — Senator Romeo Dallaire threw his support behind Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff on Friday, applauding the rookie MP’s vision for the country.

Dallaire — the retired Canadian general who tried, but failed to stop the Rwandan genocide — announced his endorsement in Saint John.

"We need someone who can articulate where we are going as a nation in the world, and (who has) that intellectual rigour and also the ability to make it palatable to Canadians," Dallaire told reporters after a speech to the Saint John Board of Trade.

Ignatieff is one of 11 candidates running to replace former prime minister Paul Martin, who resigned after losing power in the January election. The acclaimed scholar is widely considered the early front-runner in the leadership race.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/510897.html

This is interesting and somewhat surprising from Dallaire...I was under the impression that Dallaire had had some sorta of 'dove' conversion from his Rwanda...I guess that was a wrong assumption.

Also Dallaire seems to think "the ability to make it palatable to Canadians" is a desireable quality...you mean like the ability to make something 'rotten' like illegally invading an oil-rich country based on complete fabrication seem 'tasty' in the same way the meat industry takes 'rotten' food and turns them into 'baloney'.
Poor choice of words and since I do have respect for Mr. Dallaire, I'll put the pitbull back on the leash.

Oh posted topic: Oh yeah, Harper - truly one of history's worst monsters :eyes:

[Spazito]

6. His endorsement doesn't surprise me, he is VERY supportive

of Canada's combat role in Afghanistan and spoke in favour of it during the debate on whether to extend the mission. I, too, would have hoped he was more dovish but he is, after all, first, last and always a military man and can only see life through those eyes, imo.

[MrPrax]

7. Very good point...

Better than my own...and a good morning to you ;-)

[Spazito]

8. Good morning to you! It is a particularly good morning as Harper's

e-mails re criticism are public and, MOST OF ALL, it is STANLEY CUP night!! Go Oilers!

[MrPrax]

9. Oh and you were doing so well...

Yes I can hardly wait for Weight to lose...Go Oilers!!

Oh yeah...Hurtig's letter writing campaign over at ceasefire.ca got some press...I'll put as much credence in that as I did when the churches pulled this trick during the SSM debate ;-)

Quite shocking that the Tories might not want to follow liberal policies...the nerve of them :eyes:

While were on the subject of war and illegal occupation...what will happen to the Liberal talking points if Ignatieff gets elected--at least Harper repudiated his position on Iraq. At least the folks over at ceasefire.ca are going after Ignatieff (link found via ceasefire.ca), which is more than I can say for a lot of liberals who apparantly want the public to think they are a viable alternative to the Tories while not sounding too much like Tories. The NDP look like they are headed for history's dustbin this time around.

The new dems will have a hard time counteracting their own anti-Tory propaganda of the last ten years, which has only gone to make a compelling case to vote for the Liberals--which I think cynically is where Layton's loyalities ultimately lie. Afterall dear Poppa was a Quebec liberal lieutenant for two decades until he backstabbed them and became a Mulroney cabinet minister.(oops)

There has been a long underlying motive among some Liberals to destroy the NDP and it looks like the NDP is letting it happen under the guise of 'coalition-building'. Ironic of course that these same types will decry 'Americanization', but quietly endorse the acceptance of a 'two-party' system which will lead to a greater harmonization of the two country's political cultures--of which old 'Iggy' has been sent manage.

Is this bad?

Well if your are a strong supporter of the socialist side of the NDP...it's sad. It means, like previously stated, a much more narrow political agenda based on 'ideological symmetry' and homogenity of free market rationale and removes the possibilities of a more rigorous and comprehensive economic and social solutions that speak to issues of economic injustice.

But if your a supporter on the other side and are more interested in defending individual charter-rights and largely middle-class entitlement schemes designed to promote 'equality', social harmony and enhanced opportunities , then there aren't a whole lot of the current sitting New Dem MPs that would have clear ideological conflicts sitting as liberals or forming a coalition with them. Of course this would accelerate and finish off the NDP as a federal force. In fact if anything those types of MPs in the NDP would certainly benefit from the direct participation of government as opposed to 'influence peddling' which is all they have done for the past 15 years.

Not shaping up well for Progressives...and part of why I have a personal distaste for some of the liberals who post here and as quite annoyed by the fact that they can't accept the very simple argument that some folks might not see all that much difference bewteen tories and liberals ;-)

[Spazito]

11. Hmmm, I do find your increasing support for Harper.....

or rather, should I say, your increasing need to defend him and his government....interesting to say the least. I must say your commentary re the Libs and the faux Cons are so alike "that some folks might not see all that much difference bewteen tories and liberals" eerily similar to Nader's argument in the 2000 election in the States. We saw how successful that was, bush was elected, was that his plan in the first place, one wonders? Is having Harper elected to a majority your hope? If not, why the defense of him and the tearing down of the other two parties, the Liberals and the NDP, your supposed party?

[MrPrax]

13. Do you want to know how wrong you are?

In addition to the rest of the crap in my work 'laptop' 'puter is an application for the Liberal Party of Canada. Why? Because for the first time in my life, I am considering becoming a Liberal to see what I could do to help Gerard Kennedy get the leadership 'nod'!!!! (fat chance I will ever find any good analysis of what is going on in the Liberal party these days at this forum :eyes:)

Now if there is some idiot NDPer out there that would like to discuss this potential of Kennedy facing Layton and wondering where the Progressive vote should go...they will have to explain to MY satisfaction and everyone else's why, since Kennedy seems more to the left than Layton, why would any Progressive, unless they are trying to get the Tories elected, would bother with the NDP? How about we talk about that little problem with the New Dems or is that 'Giving comfort to the Enemy'?

Would this mean being a LPC member mean I would vote for the say The Gnat if he got the nod? Never...my cynicism bars me from openly hypocritical support for assholes regardless of their party. Unlike most here, I distinctly remember reading this animal's defense of murder, wealth and the American Empire a mere 3 years ago. At the time I was thinking, 'what a Hitchens-like fascist sell-out...typical neo-liberalism Third Way globalist shit where fake liberals consistently 'sell out' to prove their loyality to the ruling class so they can get money, guns and power.

Well needless to say my spidey sensing start tingling when this guy--out of NOWHERE--figures he can be leader of the Liberal party and has support. Among other things I think that make no sense is that the ONLY strong position the Liberals took that at least grounded their support in the last two elections was their OPPOSITION TO THE IRAQ WAR.

It is ONLY through partisan brainwashing that such a candidate would even be given a fig leaf of support and MOREOVER is a clear attempt by these party supporters to continue to push the Liberal party towards the right in order to capture TORY votes--NOT progressive votes. Ergo I don't see much difference between Liberals and Tories...especially if they are going to run warmongers, Pro-lifers and braindead token candidates. I HAVE to take these clowns seriously do I -- or what 'you accuse me of being a Tory'. I'll live with the shame...being a rad unalligned socialist type, I have been called far worst.

Now the 'Nader' thing is simply childish and stupid on many many levels--least of which is supposedly a Canadian having to rooting around in the american political system (while decrying Americanization all the time) to use an analogy about VOTE SPLITTING that has absolutely nothing to do with Canada or it's federal political system of 5 registered political parties!!!

Now if you knew anything about this country and it's history you would be much more likely to say use an example of the CPC in the King election of 1943 or the vote splitting of the NDP in 1974 or 1988 (or as our good friend Bragi likes to point out, quite legitimately, the 'Naderization' of the NDP vote in the last two elections).

But NDPers can't use these examples because they were the 'NADER' factor in those elections and the Liberals have consistently accused them for half a century of doing just that: vote-splitting. (Or the NADER-esque 'vote splitting' accusations of the Reform vis a vis the PCs for the last ten years)...plainly Spatizo this is one of the stupidest things you have ever said. Think about it--if I were some covert Tory like you were accusing me of, then how would I be contributing to vote-splitting that already exists between the NDP and Liberals with my comments? Clearly my concerns were that if the Liberals and NDP don't get their shit together either individually or collectively, the Tories will sweep...not something I relish and not something Tory operatives would like to volunteer to liberal and NDP supporters either.

There is virtually no Opposition to Harper which is strange because in the last minority government the Liberals had a hell of a time with the Opposition, namely the effective stratgies of the Tory party under Harper)...I am not going to take posters here too seriously when they want to deny a basic fact that everyone else sees and that is there is a distinct crisis going on among the Opposition parties.

Why...well I am trying to point them out. Not likely Tories are going to care about it and it's not likely that a Tory who has been posting here way longer than most of you guys would have--what?--lying in wait for a Tory breakthrough minority government in order to make his move. This would mean that the Tories have some sorta of crystal ball, no?

Funny story about that level of 'covert' activity...I met several years ago a old school commie at a Spartacus book fundraiser. The guy was a retired Vancouver policeman, so I naturally bristled. BUT I started talking to the old coot--out of interest and curosity--anyway...when he came to Canada and like a good like Commie, he went to the local party with his credentials to see what needs to be done. They told him, 'we need more people in the police dempartment here--with your background, you'd have no problem getting in...get a job and wait'

Okay, so the guy goes and becomes a vancouver cop for the next 35/40 years and a dedicated little commie worker drone. He'd been retired for a few years...he said that in the whole 35 years he was in the cops, the commies never once ask him for information, never once assign him to some 'party' business internally and so at the end of his career, he asked them, 'why did you send me to work cops?'.

A former party drone that was around at the time and familiar with the CPC said, apparantly very matter of factly, 'oh...if it was at that time in the late 50s, then the Party needed the money'. LOL

Never asked a single fucking question of the party and simply paid his 'tithe' for decades after decades--I like that story becasue through the entire cold war there were folks desparately worried about commie infiltration (including the former commies in the NDP!)...no doubt the commies liked money as well. LOL

But in these days where 'up is down', 'war is peace' '2+2=5' and party supporters following the tactics of the Khymer ROUGE where everything is 'year zero' in politics and nothing existed before they lost then the story is germane to all party supporting drones who MUST be willing to accept responsibility for their activities, even when it appears that those activities are at conflict with their stated beliefs.

Now if the ONLY thing you got from my rap was--oh you must be a Tory or your helping the Tories...then I have no use for people who shout down legit political criticism or people who will support their party out of a sense of blind loyality CLEARLY not shared by the people running their parties...in other words, they act like commie cops.

ciao and yes last night was a disappointment...let's see if the Liberals can get the Cup back to Canada!!

(Notice it was two teams from Tory Alberta that lost it to the Americans--hmmmm ...Ironic?...I think not comrade...the losses were purely designed to export our sport to America on behalf of our Corporate Overlords!!!! ;-)

[Spazito]

14. Wow, touchy

You do seem to have ....changed from the last election cycle to now. If I recall, you were VERY PRO NDP, not any more it seems. I am glad to see that. You don't seem to remember I don't BELONG to any PARTY and, indeed, was critical of those who defended the NDP do or die, regardless of their actions or lack of. I tend to vote Liberal but voted NDP to remove a faux con from my riding and the faux cons did lose that riding, thank goodness.

The Nader example was fine, imo, but I accept you disagree. I don't tend to stick to only my own country when giving examples if I don't feel it is needed. My point was the similarity to the charges made by the Nader group and those being made by you, regardless of the difference of governance structures, the point I was making applies to either as it was to do with party supporters and not party structures.

I never said I thought you were a faux con, I merely said I found your defense of them ....interesting. You certainly didn't defend them during the last election cycle from what I recall. You concentrated totally on the Liberals. Given your previous concentration, it is very interesting you are now considering joining them to help out Kennedy, someone you and I do agree is a VERY worthy candidate to support versus the others that are vying for the postion.


Last of all, agree, the cup needs to come HOME where it belongs!

[MrPrax]

15. Fair comment...

Your right...until even a couple of months ago I figured the NDP might triangulate and score some points. (I distinctly remember being a little shocked at what little the NDP finally accepted with the old deal with the devil saga--boneheads)

I got to be honest is that--I don't believe they will do anything to capture their advantages and with the passing of more legislation and more important issues coming down the pike (as well as the fact that it could fall), I got be honest and say, 'um...it's probably best they disappear or something because they are going to split the vote if the poll terrain don't change'...I got no respect for Layton and in hindsight, Hargrove (a guy I can't stand) had a legit point.

As far as the liberals--yeah Kennedy is only real good one...I think we talked before...and Dryden looks good as a compromise...the other ones are garbage--Volpe? (No chance in hell, but I thought he was head of the Pro-life liberal caucus or something). So looking over the scene, if Kennedy or Dryden doesn't go...then I am back to protest voting with the dumb Greens.

It is frustrating because they are so many really good opportunities for Progressives, but they are letting them slip away again due to strategies that are not going to work, I am afraid.

Good on ya