The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Lawrence of Liberal-abia
I had a bit of a tussle with columnist Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail just prior to going on vacation a couple of weeks ago. We jostled over his contention that Harper would deliberately stoke people's fears ("The fear card has been dealt - and Harper will play it") for political reasons, following the arrest of those 17 alleged terrorists. Here was our “venomous” exchange:
Yours truly: "The fear card has been dealt - and Harper will play it. Well, is he playing it? Nice try, Larry. Wrong as usual".
Lawrence Martin: "The terror scare happened two weeks ago. It will take two years before we know how it has been played. So far in response he has already hiked security spending, as announced last week. As for wrong calls I recall getting dozens of angry e-mails from your type when I wrote repeatedly before the Iraq war that WMD was a total exaggeration, that it was threat inflation, an example of playing the fear card. So nice try."
Yours truly: "I thought WMD was total hype too, Larry, so "my type" was in agreement with you on that. Bush has aggressively played the fear card (the guy doesn't know the meaning of speak softly and carry a big stick), but 9/11 changed that country much more than it did the rest of us. But Harper is not Bush, as much as your type try to portray him as such. As far as I've seen since the terror arrests, Harper has been the picture of calm and restraint and reason (BTW, raising security spending does not count as playing the fear card). The only people who play the fear card well in Canada are the Liberals, who pulled every stop to fear the population out of voting for Harper in the last two elections. Nobody comes close to Liberal hysterics and fear-mongering. Not even Bush."
Lawrence Martin: "I guess you missed my two TV interviews in which I said Harper is off to the best first 100 days of any prime minister in half a century. And I guess you missed my column in which I said he should junk most of what the Liberals did. As for Bush, Harper, as you know, would have followed him right into Iraq had he been in power. So you're being rather selective in your analysis and for you to draw conclusions re. fear card on the basis of two weeks is, to be kind, sophomoric. As I say, it will take two years to tell. At that point, who knows, you might well find justification for your venomous e-mails."
And then unfortunately, I had to dash out to catch my flight to England. Now first of all, it’s rather convenient for him to want two years to prove his point: I’m not going to remember to get back to him on this one, nor is anyone else. Second, if Harper was going to play the fear card, one would expect to at least see some indication of this in the fresh aftermath of a foiled terrorist plot, more than in the months that follow, yet the Prime Minister has completely ducked the opportunity to peddle panic. But more importantly, two years strikes me as precisely the amount of time L.M. is unwilling to see Canada’s mission to Afghanistan extended, on the dubious grounds that it is an unwinnable quagmire (I guess we should have just walked out of the quagmires at Ypres, the Somme and Paschandaele too, and maybe the Jews should just leave Israel because their struggle is, you know, unwinnable). On something as crucial as our own national security (letting the Taliban re-occupy Afghanistan would clearly not be good for Western security, never mind for the long term safety of the indigenous population), he won’t give us the time of day to prove positive results. So forgive me if I’m a little reluctant to spare him the same on a more trivial test.
In any event, that’s not what perturbs me about dear old Larry. He belongs to that tiny elite in our outdated Liberal media (thankfully conservatives now dominate the media in Canada) who for the past thirty years have had their way plundering this country of its historical identity. His latest move on this front is his desire that we grow up and dump the monarchy. Now that’s Larry’s choice, and he’s free to lay out where he stands on our future, but get this. A couple of years ago, he was conversing with Prime Minister Chretien’s director of communications, Peter Donolo, trying to get him to comment on the Liberal’s position on the monarchy “off the record”. So Peter gets to chatting and next morning – presto! Liberals Consider Ditching the Monarchy front page story in the Globe and Mail. Now the whole country is supposed to engage in a debate on the monarchy, just because Peter and Larry got to talking over drinks and dinner? Peter later recounted how he thought he was in deep trouble with the PM, but Chretien only offered something to the effect of: “No worries, Peter. Let’s see what the people say”. And that’s a prime example of how Lawrence of Liberal-abia and the rest of the Liberal elite were able to influence the political agenda. All we peasants could do was watch.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:05 p.m. | LINKS |
I had a bit of a tussle with columnist Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail just prior to going on vacation a couple of weeks ago. We jostled over his contention that Harper would deliberately stoke people's fears ("The fear card has been dealt - and Harper will play it") for political reasons, following the arrest of those 17 alleged terrorists. Here was our “venomous” exchange:Yours truly: "The fear card has been dealt - and Harper will play it. Well, is he playing it? Nice try, Larry. Wrong as usual".
Lawrence Martin: "The terror scare happened two weeks ago. It will take two years before we know how it has been played. So far in response he has already hiked security spending, as announced last week. As for wrong calls I recall getting dozens of angry e-mails from your type when I wrote repeatedly before the Iraq war that WMD was a total exaggeration, that it was threat inflation, an example of playing the fear card. So nice try."
Yours truly: "I thought WMD was total hype too, Larry, so "my type" was in agreement with you on that. Bush has aggressively played the fear card (the guy doesn't know the meaning of speak softly and carry a big stick), but 9/11 changed that country much more than it did the rest of us. But Harper is not Bush, as much as your type try to portray him as such. As far as I've seen since the terror arrests, Harper has been the picture of calm and restraint and reason (BTW, raising security spending does not count as playing the fear card). The only people who play the fear card well in Canada are the Liberals, who pulled every stop to fear the population out of voting for Harper in the last two elections. Nobody comes close to Liberal hysterics and fear-mongering. Not even Bush."
Lawrence Martin: "I guess you missed my two TV interviews in which I said Harper is off to the best first 100 days of any prime minister in half a century. And I guess you missed my column in which I said he should junk most of what the Liberals did. As for Bush, Harper, as you know, would have followed him right into Iraq had he been in power. So you're being rather selective in your analysis and for you to draw conclusions re. fear card on the basis of two weeks is, to be kind, sophomoric. As I say, it will take two years to tell. At that point, who knows, you might well find justification for your venomous e-mails."
And then unfortunately, I had to dash out to catch my flight to England. Now first of all, it’s rather convenient for him to want two years to prove his point: I’m not going to remember to get back to him on this one, nor is anyone else. Second, if Harper was going to play the fear card, one would expect to at least see some indication of this in the fresh aftermath of a foiled terrorist plot, more than in the months that follow, yet the Prime Minister has completely ducked the opportunity to peddle panic. But more importantly, two years strikes me as precisely the amount of time L.M. is unwilling to see Canada’s mission to Afghanistan extended, on the dubious grounds that it is an unwinnable quagmire (I guess we should have just walked out of the quagmires at Ypres, the Somme and Paschandaele too, and maybe the Jews should just leave Israel because their struggle is, you know, unwinnable). On something as crucial as our own national security (letting the Taliban re-occupy Afghanistan would clearly not be good for Western security, never mind for the long term safety of the indigenous population), he won’t give us the time of day to prove positive results. So forgive me if I’m a little reluctant to spare him the same on a more trivial test.
In any event, that’s not what perturbs me about dear old Larry. He belongs to that tiny elite in our outdated Liberal media (thankfully conservatives now dominate the media in Canada) who for the past thirty years have had their way plundering this country of its historical identity. His latest move on this front is his desire that we grow up and dump the monarchy. Now that’s Larry’s choice, and he’s free to lay out where he stands on our future, but get this. A couple of years ago, he was conversing with Prime Minister Chretien’s director of communications, Peter Donolo, trying to get him to comment on the Liberal’s position on the monarchy “off the record”. So Peter gets to chatting and next morning – presto! Liberals Consider Ditching the Monarchy front page story in the Globe and Mail. Now the whole country is supposed to engage in a debate on the monarchy, just because Peter and Larry got to talking over drinks and dinner? Peter later recounted how he thought he was in deep trouble with the PM, but Chretien only offered something to the effect of: “No worries, Peter. Let’s see what the people say”. And that’s a prime example of how Lawrence of Liberal-abia and the rest of the Liberal elite were able to influence the political agenda. All we peasants could do was watch.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:05 p.m. | LINKS |
Comments:
Can't see the comments?If you are unable to see the comments, your browser may have javascript turned off or may not support javascript. Check your security settings. Otherwise you can click here to access to comments in regular HTML from the TheirSay! Comment Server.
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
