it's a terrible editing job on the CPC homepage. clearly,a bad attempt to associate kennedy with booze. no question. i've asked for an explanation from the CPC via email. i wonder if i get a response.

Posted by: jeff at August 28, 2006 08:24 AM

---

Now that you mention it, does Kennedy like his wobbly pops a bit too much?
enough

Posted by: enough at August 28, 2006 08:46 AM

---

I would have thought that showing Gerard Kennedy with a couple of beer bottles would be totally OK. Beer is quintessentially Canadian, it's the quintessential drink of young Canadian males, who I'm sure the Libs would like to attract in large numbers, and from a certain perspective, beer bottles make Gerard Kennedy look cool.

In fact, what's the Conservative Party Web site DOING giving Gerard Kennedy good press? Kennedy's team should be thanking the Conservatives for free advertising.

What's the Libs’ problem? Ungrateful wretches.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 28, 2006 09:09 AM

---

when i saw it, the first thing i though was "cool way to keep the beer and popcorn thing alive"...not once did i think the CPC was trying to say that kennedy was a drunk

Posted by: tori mugwump at August 28, 2006 09:48 AM

---

Those are Coors Lights. Hardly a drink of choice for a lush.

Posted by: Old Jute at August 28, 2006 09:57 AM

---

"If you tried to take out the beer bottles, you'd have these mysterious blobs in front"

Yeah, but it's not like this is the only photo in existence of Kennedy. There are hundreds of other photos they could have used; in light of this, your explanation fails.

It was a cheap shot unbecoming of the Conservative Party of Canada and if they ever pull a stunt like thid again they will begin to lose their morality-based supporters, many of whom, it should be noted, are of Irish heritage.

Posted by: cbt at August 28, 2006 10:03 AM

---

Yeah, the editing is a bit suspect. By fuzzing out everything but Kennedy and the beer bottles it forces the viewer to focus only on the them and create a connection, subconscious or otherwise. We can't complain about the "King Stephen" photo and shrug something like this off without becoming a little hypocritical.

Posted by: Darren at August 28, 2006 10:13 AM

---

Being a fairly staunch Tory, this won't change my opinions in any way, but to me the kicker is that beer bottle on the right where the chair got edited. If it was NOT a poor attempt to include beer bottles they would have taken the easy road out, and cropped the right side out, instead of painting part of the chair back in to keep the bottle there.

It is in bad taste to edit poorly.

But at least they didnt put extra beer bottles in the picture or move empty beer bottles around from photo op to photo op as the Liblogs are making this sound.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at August 28, 2006 10:19 AM

---

Doctoring photos for political gain is unethical and dishonest. If the CPC is saying that Kennedy has a drinking problem then say it openly. Not by slimy inuendo and photoshop.

Kennedy does not have a drinking problem and this is gutter politics at its worse.

Posted by: Gritpatriot at August 28, 2006 10:45 AM

---

It never ceases to amaze me that blogging tories can be so stupid. There's a couple of good blogs, but the rest - oh my God.

I know Harper likes a beer, maybe he'll have one with Kennedy. Oh no, that can't happen. That would be a non-partisan friendly thing to do and we can't have that.

Posted by: Sandi at August 28, 2006 10:55 AM

---

What about the beer bottle that was brought forward and into the shot (bottom right)? Why would that be in focus unless _someone_ though the beer was important to the picture?

Posted by: Giant Political Mouse at August 28, 2006 11:22 AM

---

You'd think PMSH did the photoshopping himself the way everybody goes on aboutit . It's precisely the kind of idiotic thing a politically naive web designer would do, no matter where on the political spectrum they are.

Posted by: Fergy at August 28, 2006 11:26 AM

---

Big stinkin' deal!

Posted by: Soccermom at August 28, 2006 11:28 AM

---

Maybe I've really missed something here. When I first saw the photo, nothing seemed amiss; I noticed that Gerard Kennedy was holding forth and that he seemed to have young listeners. Both pluses.

I also knew that there'd been a big Liberal get-together, and like there is at every political gathering like this there'd be some socializing. Socializing in Canada means beer. So Gerard Kennedy is pictured socializing and ther are a couple of beer bottle on the table in front of him.

'Talk about a tempest in a beer bottle is right! I wouldn't have thought anything of it if my attention had not been drawn to it.

You need thicker skins, Libs. I know you're not used to being misunderstood, given that your MSM cheerleaders and "keepers" have protected you. But you've hit the big leagues now--0pposition--where the rubber hits the road and the going gets tough.

Are you going to get going or just whine and complain? The call's yours.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 28, 2006 11:29 AM

---

We, as conservatives, cannot allow ourselves or the party we support to do such things especially after we've been screaming about the lib-left doing it with pics of the PM, Condi Rice and more recently with pics out of the ME.

Fact: The CPC altered a photo.

Those of you willing to brush it off are hypocrites blinded by partisanship.

Posted by: Richard Evans at August 28, 2006 12:03 PM

---

Whoa!!

Speaking on behalf of Fat Lushes Of Canada (F.L.O.C.), I would remind all you slim teetotallers to pop a cold one and chill out.

In Afghanistan PMSH was photographed with all sorts of military hardware. The one photo op that garnered massive exposure and invited the most derisive comments and constant recycling through the press, was the Prime Minister and a can of Root Beer!! (The Base is alcohol-free so as not to offend the strict moral code of the Muslim population.) PM Harper and his can of Root Beer raised all sorts of questions about his health, his pot belly, the state of his heart and the size of his waistline. Boo-Hoooo!

Kennedy gets snapped with a beer in his hand, and the Conservatives are targetted for calumny again? WTF?? Boo-Hoo-Hoo-Hoo!

1867, Charlottetown. (BTW. Which Charlotte is this town named after?) The Fathers of Confederation had enough booze of all sorts to float one Stanley Cup Party for a winning modern Canadian City's population, and they would have had enough left over for two weeks of Grey Cup Festivities and rowdiness as well.

Which Father of Confederation, as Prime Minister of Canada, was so drunk in the House of Commons that he could hardly stand and speak, and ended up hurling chunks onto the floor of The House? He got rather ill, yes. Blamed it on the poutine. It's in Hansard. I am not making this up. I am not allowed to.

If anyone falsely implies that Kennedy is a lush, take it as some sort of compliment. Being ranked right up there with The Rt. Hon., Prime Minister Lushwell, should be pretty good street creds, peeps.

Jason. BooHooHooHooHooooo! Kwithcyerbellyakin'!!Grow Up! Quit majoring on minor issues. The party is in rough enough shape already. Your petulant childishness is unbecoming, it shows fear and weakness, and it makes the team look really bad.

Posted by: Tango Juliette at August 28, 2006 12:03 PM

---

Liberals have lost there minds. This is not about defending the tories. You have some insecurity problems if you are complaing about this.

To even mention this in the same breath as the reutergate photos is to show your lack of common sense.

Just the libs crying wolf and that is what is. Sad, it really shows how imature they have become. Come on who did not laugh when they seen the libby's whinning about this and shake there heads like "are these guys for real".

The best thing the picture looks better then the originel. And if you think the CPC is trying to show Kennedy is a lush well I think you have your own motives or some mentel issues.

like they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Posted by: JDot at August 28, 2006 12:29 PM

---

The Liberal’s gas tank is working on fumes. We can’t seriously expect them to come up with anything worthwhile than this pathetic excuse as a scandal because simply put, they have absolutley NOTHING else to work with. This is the best they’ve got. They reek of desperation and this latest joke of a tactic is the latest whiff.

Posted by: Aslandic at August 28, 2006 12:33 PM

---

The Liberals were caught with their pants down as a budget was being passed and when they realized what just happened it was like, "wha......wha.......what just happened?" Hey wake up fools, a BUDGET you had problems with was passed and you couldn't even be bothered to wake up and take notice. And now they're latest Caucas meeting ended up as a total farce. The Liberals cannot even be an affective Opposition and they want to be the GOVERNMENT?

No wonder they are trying to make hay out of this......."issue". The Liberals have nothing susbstantial to say, even in the midst of a leadership race.

As a Conservative, even I have to say how sad it is to see to what depths the Liberals have sunk to. Just when you think that they have scraped the bottom of the barrel, then you find a trap door at the bottom and the top of another barrel.

Posted by: Ontario Lad at August 28, 2006 12:42 PM

---

I know next to nothing about Kennedy, and as a non- cardcarrying Liberal, couldn't vote for or against him in any case, but to my mind, having a beer in an informal setting like that is a _positive_. Lighten up folks.

Posted by: Imethisguy at August 28, 2006 12:43 PM

---

Two of the beers appear to be a place setting away from Kennedy, even in the second photo. The other is closer to his arm and in drinking distance -- so what? Gerard Kennedy, human? Oh my goodness, what next!
Personally, I think they've done him a favour. The first photo is kind of fuzzy and indistinct, but the second is sharp and makes Kennedy stand out from the background -- it makes him look like he's the focus of the photo. In fact, he looks almost like you could take him seriously.
All this nonsense about subliminal connections between Kennedy and beer are kind of lame. As though that would sway people against him? Part of what people have criticized about Harper is that he seemed too uptight that you couldn't see him sitting back drinking a beer.
I'm a non-drinker and I certainly wouldn't have drawn the inference that Kennedy should be associated with booze.
If the CPC wanted to make Kennedy look bad, all they'd have to do is examine his record as Education Minister and the disaster he's left behind. Oh, I know -- Liberals will say that even after all this time, it's Mike Harris' fault -- but the coming crisis in education in Ontario is courtesy of a minister who couldn't say 'no' to unions -- that is what Kennedy should be associated with -- and that is far more damaging than a beer bottle on the CPC website.

Posted by: canadianna at August 28, 2006 12:52 PM

---

JDot said:

"Liberals have lost there minds. This is not about defending the tories. You have some insecurity problems if you are complaing about this.

To even mention this in the same breath as the reutergate photos is to show your lack of common sense."

Note to JDot: Check your moral relivator, it seems to be working overtime. When you're done, answer the following questions:

1. Did the CPC alter a photo and use the result for political gain? Yes or No?

2. Did a Reuters photog. alter a photo and use the result for political gain? Yes or No?

3. Are questions 1 and 2 not exactly the same with the exception of who did the editing? Yes or No?

If you answered "No" to any of those questions you're either a fool or a damned liar and my assertion in regards to being "hypocrites blinded by partisanship" applies specifically to individuals like you.

Here's a bonus question:

What's more important in re-solidifing the conservative political movement in North America, truth or cheap political points?

Chew on it for a few minutes...

Posted by: Richard Evans at August 28, 2006 01:19 PM

---

Richard evens

1)no - the identies are abscured do to the fact if they did use them the people in the photo can then file a lawsuit. Kennedy is a public figure thereby they need not obscure. Hence good legal advice b/c we all know how liberals are.

2) Is the CPC a news entity yes or no. Answer is no so your comparison to rueters is idiotic.

3) no the question are not the same. one is a news entity the other is a poltical party, so whats your point.

Man just keeping reaching I'm laughing so hard. So the Conservitves are a news wire now.

Listen my man you need to chilllllllll all you are doing is making the liberals look bad. And I'm not a card carring person of no party I don't let groups define my values, I am what I am. But when I see BS I call BS and this sir is a big flaming bag of BS. But hey whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

Posted by: JDot at August 28, 2006 01:39 PM

---

Altering photos in this day in age will bring you nothing but grief. Lib, Conservative,NDP doesn't matter, people are on to this game and any photo thats published is studied closely. Maybe Hezbollah's public relations dept.,Reuters, has done us a favour by opening our eyes.

Posted by: rick at August 28, 2006 01:39 PM

---

Sorry Richard on the last name wrong spelling - Evans

Posted by: JDot at August 28, 2006 01:43 PM

---

JDot; We're going to pretend that was a response and reply accordingly:

"1)no - the identies are abscured do to the fact if they did use them the people in the photo can then file a lawsuit. Kennedy is a public figure thereby they need not obscure. Hence good legal advice b/c we all know how liberals are."

So you're saying that the photo wasn't altered? Well, the FACT that the original is different shows clearly that it was altered.

Are you saying that the altered photo wasn't being used for political gain? Ask yourself why it was on the CPC site (a political entity) if NOT for political gain. Do you really think those folks post stuff in order to suffer political loss?

Which are you, a fool or a liar?

Your explaination in regards to blurring doesn't wash and you need to brush up on the legal parts a little. You should also probably cite your source for that little tidbit...

====================

"2) Is the CPC a news entity yes or no. Answer is no so your comparison to rueters is idiotic."

You didn't answer the question. Let me help: Fact. The Reuters photog altered a photo. Fact. It was done for political gain.

Which are you, a fool or a liar?

====================

"3) no the question are not the same. one is a news entity the other is a poltical party, so whats your point."

Incorrect again. Both entities altered photos and presented those altered pics for public consumption.

Which are you, a fool or a liar?

"Man just keeping reaching I'm laughing so hard. So the Conservitves are a news wire now."

I'm glad you're amused. It's rare to see people laughing when they know they're getting their asses handed to them.

Whether the alteration/distribution was done via a news organisation or a political party is irrelevant. The fact is that it was done.

Like I said earlier, you've got to deal with that moral relivator of yours.

Lets use an anology to help you along:

A smelly hippie burns down an animal testing lab because he want's to save the fuzzy bunnies. A clean-cut conservative guy torches his own car because it's old and he want's to collect the insurance. Both are arsonists even though the scope of damages and the motivations are different.

Wrong is wrong and it's hypocritical to criticise/punish one and not the other...

Posted by: Richard Evans at August 28, 2006 02:44 PM

---

For the love of God, haven't you people anything better to do? The guy is not drinking beer, he is not looking at the beer, he doesn't look drunk, he's not puking, he's not handing a brew to innocent children, and he is a couple of feet from the bottles. How is this a political statement one way or another? And if the guy had a beer or two, so what? Get a life, people....

Posted by: BillBC at August 28, 2006 03:17 PM

---

Who cares if Kennedy likes to drink beer, as long as he doesn't drink and drive. Anyone running for the Liberal leadership would need some fortification, something to ease the pain, the mess that party is in.
Only problem here is why we didn't get a shot and a whole lot of coverage of someone kicking a chair and the psychoanalysis of the kicker. Someone has to have kicked a chair at some Liberal gathering.
We appear to have struck a nerve here and a clear message is emerging, IT'S MUCH MORE FUN TO DISH THE DIRT THAN RECEIVE IT, they are really ticked!
Most of us can remember the laughing, sneering Liberals as they slimed their way to victory in elections over more than a decade tearing down decent people with lies and personal degradation.
We must stick with truth, even if we have to fight fire with fire.

Posted by: Biddy at August 28, 2006 03:58 PM

---

Liberal Ads point guns in your face (and shooting them at you), show hysterical catatonic women with their arms wrapped around themselves and rocking, and armed soldiers invading cities so Harper can take over the country by force using the military.....

And you Liberals complain about empty beer bottles in a picture????????

On a partisan website? Not force fed 5,000 times a day to all the country in Ads during hockey games...

If anything they make your candidate look more human and a regular guy.

Hypocrisy.

In Canada.

Right here, in our cities.

We’re not allowed to make this stuff up.

Posted by: KyleD at August 28, 2006 04:34 PM

---

Oh, I almost missed this until it was pointed out by Fergy; JDot said: "Listen my man you need to chilllllllll all you are doing is making the liberals look bad."

Making the libs look bad is a good thing as I'm a hard-core conservative. How is it that as soon as an individual criticizes a conservative position, you immediately think that individual is from the lib-left?

Judging by the responses to the post and my comments it's clear that some folks still don't get it. Yes it's a minor friggin' issue and yes, the moonbats are pickin' flyshit out of pepper but it's my assertion that this flyshit shouldn't have been there to begin with and it's going to end up biting us in the ass. Especially if CPC supporters try to gloss it over...

Lets fast-forward to the next election:

Angry puts up a post decrying the LPC for using photoshopped pics of Harper in order to make him look "scary". I'll bet dollars to donughts that Jason Cherniak and Robert McClelland would be tripping over each other to be the first to scream about how the conservatives are hipocrites.

At that point could we really argue that they're wrong? The debate would be dead and any moral high-ground we may have had on this issue will be lost...

Think past your keyboards kids...

Posted by: Richard Evans at August 28, 2006 05:40 PM

---

Richard Evans hits this otherwise inane topic on the head. The issue isn't whether this particular photo does or does not hurt Mr. Kennedy in the eyes of voters (it does not); it's about partisan hypocrisy. Clearly the photo was altered with the purpose of highlighting the beer bottles in mind; to suggest otherwise is simply willful ignorance of the facts. The damning evidence, of course, is the bottle on the far right, which was clearly cropped and shifted slightly to the left (examine the label on the neck in the enlarged image). At least Mr. Evans, among others, has the integrity and foresight to acknowledge the CPC's error in this case; those who refuse to do so are blinded by partisanship and pride.

Posted by: A at August 28, 2006 08:02 PM

---

Ok, does anyone who has a problem with this think voters are going to give a shit about this? I mean, really?

C'mon

Posted by: Aslandic at August 28, 2006 08:28 PM

---

Ok, does anyone who has a problem with this think voters are going to give a shit about this? I mean, really?

C'mon

Posted by: Aslandic at August 28, 2006 08:28 PM

---

A; Thank You...

Posted by: Richard Evans at August 28, 2006 11:05 PM

---

Wait. Your equation, if I understand you correctly:

An historic, global news agency doctors combat zone images, victim/combatants/citizens from one target zone stage manage corpses, destroyed infrastructures and (perhaps some of..) the local citizenry. All for the sake of creating greater impact and spin on the world stage. As if the basic reality of the extent of the devastation is not sufficiently horrifying.

In your (Liberal-leaning) minds, you can somehow align this grim war-zone reality with "alleged" Conservative motives behind "alleged" doctoring of newsphotos for the "alleged" purpose of "allegedly" casting one of ten Lib leadership candidates in an "allegedly" potential negative light.

Is that really your story?

You all sound like a guy driving home one night after leaving a troublesome family dinner. Half-way home, you find yourself witnessing some brutal traffic accident. road conditions and the subsequent grid-lock make it impossible for you to by-pass the site.

In the garish light of exploding and burning cars and busses, and the flashing lights of the rescue vehicles, you think that you see something no one else has noticed.

"Damn those Whatchyacallems!" you blurt out. "It certainly looks like one of them has gotten some Bernaise sauce on my favourite red tie. Blast, damn and dang!"

Doesn't matter what the hell is going on in the world, everything still has to come 'round full to be about you, and only you, doesn't it?

Now THAT is one doozy of a character flaw, individual and group. Your fear is palpable. The stench of loss, clearly evident on the afternoon breeze.

You guys are done, and I'm lovin' this!

Posted by: TangoJuliette at August 29, 2006 09:42 AM

---

Because he's a Liberal, I can perhaps question his motives. But if he drinks beer, well, maybe I have to give him some points back...

Now, editing the pic to put him in a tu-tu or a feather boa, that would be nasty...

Posted by: Gargoyle at August 29, 2006 01:14 PM

---