Really, how much is an apology worth if you have to grandstand to get one? Stronach turned this into a "Conservatives vs. women" issue, which clearly it is not. I as a woman don't feel one bit offended by the comment. It was not directed at women in general. I'm not offended at all that funding for the Status of Women was cut, etc. In fact, I'm quite happy about that.

Apologies aren't worth anything if you have to beg and cajole and bring out the dog and pony show (sorry) to get one. It would be absolutely meaningless. An apology at this stage would really seem insincere, but I think he should give one anyway to get it over with. A quicker apology would have been much better for everyone. He should also apologize for the trouble it is causing our PM and caucus.

Peter should not have said it in the first place; there are many comments thrown around in the H of C that should not be said. MPs should think twice before they shout something across the floor. All parties are equally guilty of this. Obviously there is unfinished business between these two that should take place privately.

The Liberals pretending to be so offended is quite sickening to behold; no one plays dirtier than they do (election ads, anyone?) I'm sure Belinda can handle it; she seems tough enough. But Liberals sure know how to play things up to their advantage. And people fall for it every time.

I've been noticing the mainstream media pushing back harder at conservative bloggers. They don't like being told they are biased and we are beginning to pi**them off. Look out ! Check out some recent CTV articles on this issue.

I smell an election coming up shortly after their new leader is crowned. They are itching for one. Spring 2007 for sure. Main issue: Afghanistan and the environment. And the mainstream media will be cheerleading them on in a big way.

Posted by: Soccermom at October 20, 2006 11:19 PM

---

Really, I don't think Belinda's feelings are too hurt...but she knows there are political points to be scored here and that is now what this is all about.

Posted by: Soccermom at October 20, 2006 11:27 PM

---

How is MacKay and the other mouthbreather CONs' attitude towards women going to get them one more vote towards a majority next election?

They've already lost Quebec, and are losing BC support.

Keep it up, Reform/CRAP/Alliance/CONs...

Posted by: ronin at October 21, 2006 12:06 AM

---

While I agree this is a stupid waste of time, just remember that it was David McGuinty who opened the door by bringing in MacKay's personal life into the House in the first place. Everyone knows that right after the end of the affair, Peter went home to his dog - 'because they're loyal'.
If MacKay said it, perhaps he shouldn't have taken the bait, but it was McGuinty who dangled it there.

Posted by: canadianna at October 21, 2006 12:09 AM

---

I was a little confused by Belinda's comments today. I'm still wondering if her saying the behaviour was "shameful, very disrespectful, hurtful and insulting to women" was in response to Peter McKay's alleged comments in the House of Commons or her sleepng with Leanne Domi's husband. Perhaps she could clear that up.

Posted by: Bob Frill at October 21, 2006 12:35 AM

---

It's a small price to pay for endless stories about how the conservatives are fractured because of Garth Turner's departure.

Witty Comment + Earned Media for the win. MacKay still refutes Dog comment, page 1. Garth Turner joins Greens, page 9.

(didn't spellcheck, sorry)

Posted by: Lore_Weaver at October 21, 2006 01:04 AM

---

Sorry to say it, Steve, but you took CTV's bait. That story you cited is not presentable evidence of any "tide" for you to go against, it's a completely specious transparent slur on Conservatives and a warning shot directed at the non-Lib blogosphere who have been so effective at challenging the hegemony of the former ruling tribe and it's appendages in the media.

I mean, hows this for a start to a news story: "Conservatives are not only supporting Peter MacKay, a handful of them on the internet are going even further in comparing Belinda Stronach to a dog."

Whhhaa? Would CTV begin a news story "Liberals are not only supporting Ignatieff's 'war crimes' comments -- a handful of them are going even further by comparing Israel to...." Nope. And would the Liberals ever be refered to on CTV, CBC, whatever, as "them"?
A handful of "them"?

CTV says Conservative bloggers "have no official ties to the Conservative government" but that they have "run the same media talking points as those issued by senior officials in government."

In other words, Conservative bloggers who call Belinda Stronach a dog get their talking points from the Stephen Harper government. It's just a handful of them, but it's them.

Gee, no wonder you want to buck the tide, Steve /:>)

Posted by: EBD at October 21, 2006 01:34 AM

---

Hey Soccermon, just read your 11:19 pm, and I feel kinda' relieved -- it's not just me.

Posted by: EBD at October 21, 2006 01:42 AM

---

Whoa there podner. Whose side are you on? Strong (and possibly wrong) assumptions buried in your "but let's say..." comments.

"...I don't care that he called her a name (if in fact he did, since there is some debate, but let's say he did)... "

On the other hand, how's this? In the absence of inconclusive evidence to date, LET'S SAY HE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING MORE THAN FUDDLE DUDDLE.

When did the Speaker of the House get emasculated to the point that his pronouncements no longer mean anything?

Posted by: TangoJuliette at October 21, 2006 03:55 AM

---

"inconclusive" to read "ANY conclusive..."

Posted by: TangoJuliette at October 21, 2006 04:03 AM

---

It's much ado about nothing. Madam Belinda is getting more attention, this time she's playing it and has the collossal nerve to drag it over to a women's issue.
When she was named "the other woman" in Domi's divorce, well, she wanted no part of that story and the Liberal minions in the media obliged. The pathetic pack of fools will drag this on 'til they realize nobody cares, except twits like Jane Taber who disgraced the Duffy show yesterday.

WHERE IS THE NATIONAL INQUIRER WHEN YOU NEED IT? Doubtless Belinda has already made the pages of that rag at some point.

Hang in there Peter but would you please APOLOGIZE TO OUR BELOVED DOGS!

Posted by: Biddy at October 21, 2006 07:19 AM

---

It is my understanding that David McGuinty asked Peter McKay something to the effect "what about your dog?" to which Peter responded "you got her". If Peter's response was actually "you got her" then I think that this has really been blown out of proportion.
-If Peter's response is construed to referring to Belinda, then perhaps McGuinty's question is in reference to her also??
-it seems that the vast majority of MPs, including the speaker, did not hear Peter's response.
-relative to Trudeau's infamous "F off" comment which many in the house heard, and considering Trudeas's response, and considering that there was not one foul word spoken in the McKay case and only a perceived insult spoken, coming from a broken up relationship, and considering that Belinda was not even present, and considering that Belinda did not show any concern for any other insulting or sexist coments made by others, it shows that Belinda is only concerned about herself and not the cause of women that she now tries to convey.
-all in all, is this not making a mountain out of a mole hill for the purpos of scoring political points only.

Posted by: Lewis at October 21, 2006 08:20 AM

---

I have to say this is quite familiar as a throwback to the "fuddle duddle", but with a little perceived sexism thrown on top. I must admit that the facts are quite unclear. Someone made reference to the speaker's decision. I would appreciate some clarification. All of this aside, Steve your comments are quite fair and I support you in that MP Mackay should apologize if he truly did pass the insult. I hate when such things are blinded by obscurity and denial. It's like disciplining my 5 year old. Although, from a strategic point of view, there is no benefit to admit wrong doing. The damage is done and there will be no "voter" kudos for admitting to ones faults.

Posted by: DarrenL at October 21, 2006 08:28 AM

---

No, Steve, MacKay owes no one an apology, for the simple reason that he did not say what he's been accused of.

MacKay did not say the word "dog," "bitch," or any other word.

All he said, according to the Liberals accusing him, was "You already have her." To a heckling comment about a dog, made by the Liberals themselves.

Of *course* the Liberals want to humiliate Peter MacKay. Yesterday, the speaker called them on it -- twice -- during Member's statements. They want to humiliate him because he hasn't done them the favor of getting tied up in scandal.

The ironic thing is, the more they try to make this rhetorical molehill into a mountain, the worse the Liberals look. It only adds to the meme that the Liberals believes themselves to be Perfect, Worthy of Respect, and Unsullied by Any Hint of Malice. In other words, too arrogant to realize that they are capable of wrongdoing.

It's that attitude that got them tossed out of government. It's the same attitude that they have to lose, if they're to have any chance of getting a majority. And it's an attitude that, unfortunately for the Liberals, they can't get rid of.

Posted by: PhantomObserver at October 21, 2006 08:35 AM

---

I think that the really important, fundamental issue here, tugging on the collective mind of the electorate is..... HOW GOOD IS BELINDA IN THE SACK? DOES SHE SWALLOW?

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at October 21, 2006 08:54 AM

---

Conservatives vs Women ???

Was it 'Liberals vs Women' ,when some liberals during last election decided it would be great fun to post pictures depicting Olivia as a Chow dog.Or to yell 'pork' during QP when Deb Gray was speaking.I think the Libs are making a big issue of this to cover the gaffes and failures of their "B Team" leadership hopefulls.

Posted by: tedf at October 21, 2006 09:02 AM

---

I think the whole incident was a set up in the first place!

Aren't there more important issues MSM could be discussing?

Posted by: greenleaf at October 21, 2006 09:18 AM

---

If this was an issue about 'all women' as Belinda has appointed herself to defend all women, then she would be just as upset with Lib insults hurled at Ambrose and the others women in the House..(as Georgis pointed out on Duffy yesterday) And if this was about equality she would be just as upset about the disgusting insults hurled at men in the House. This is all about Belinda and partisan politics....and the Libs and media are running it with all their might. I do however wonder how PMSH is handling this...I thought at the beginning of this parliament that was a more respectable climate in the House..it has degenerated.

Posted by: vf at October 21, 2006 09:20 AM

---

Bob Frill,

But thats different....that's a woman in power taking something from a woman who was staying at home.....thats allowed..... >sarcasm off<

Posted by: Stephen at October 21, 2006 09:29 AM

---

Bob Frill,

But thats different....that's a woman in power taking something from a woman who was staying at home.....thats allowed..... I am woman hear me roar....>sarcasm off<

Posted by: Stephen at October 21, 2006 09:29 AM

---

One has to wonder how many more times Stephen Harper has to change Peter MacKay's diapers before he fires his sorry arse.

This is not about Belinda. This is about Peter MacKay and his appalling lack of judgement. This guy should not be in Cabinet, and if he is, certainly not at Foreign Affairs.

Posted by: at October 21, 2006 09:39 AM

---

CTV Poll: They are having a hard time getting the result they "think" should happen. My ten cents worth - truth hurts, a dog is a dog is a dog.

What do you think of the latest MacKay Stronach dust-up?
Apologize. Sexist behaviour which must be addressed.
4829 votes (34 %)
Ignore it. Typical of workplace romance gone bad.
9467 votes (66 %)

Total Votes: 14296

Posted by: MaryM at October 21, 2006 09:41 AM

---

Tell you who the dirty RAT is here, it's David McGuinty. He's a slime ball sneak. They all banter in the House. If everyone acted like Mcguinty and tattled there would be nothing accomplished in that place.
Belinda Stronach does not speak for me and most other real women. She's a poor example at best and would do well to shut her stupid trap.
See a spare muzzle around?

Read Christie Blatchford's column in , dare I say The G&M today. Right on!

Posted by: Biddy at October 21, 2006 09:49 AM

---

The experts in the matter, in the Office of the Speaker of the House, having examined the tapes (and the written record), have found no evidence of the alleged slur.

It is "denying the undeniable" (in the words of Craig Oliver, continuing in his attempt to slur MacKay), to continue to posit that what the Liberals allege actually transpired.

No apology is required from MacKay, but an apology is definitely to be expected from Mssrs. Holland and McGuinty, for slurring a fellow MP without any shred of evidence.

Posted by: Paul O at October 21, 2006 10:02 AM

---

I think Peter McKay Should apologize to BS. Then he should apologize to all dogs for making them look bad. Some should send BS a box of Milk Bones!

Posted by: Faraday at October 21, 2006 10:09 AM

---

I wonder what our troops in Afghanistan think. You think they're pondering the pros and cons of the juvenile, school yard banter going on in parliament? Think they have other things to deal with? So lets refocus here people and get on with the real issues. Please, all the jokes have been used up, all the fake outrage expressed.

Posted by: Bruce at October 21, 2006 11:02 AM

---

As a grandmother I have a warning for my granddaughters.

Girls you will soon become teenagers...grandma has high hopes for you.

If you choose to become a politician, do so with integrity.
Be honest with your constituents.

Work hard...don't expect ANY handouts...YOU have to earn it.

Have morals...do NOT become the other woman in a divorce case.

In other words girls...

Do NOT become a Belinda Stronach.

Posted by: hollinm at October 21, 2006 11:38 AM

---

It's becoming much more difficult to figure out these little puzzles since the census no longer collects "Religious Affiliation" information. Not so long ago, we could easily find out this key bit of info about an MP, and could figure out who would tend to run with whom within various parties. For example: Belinda is a German-speaking Catholic. Surprisingly, Peter mackay is also German-speaking. Is he also a Catholic? And - whoa, wait a minute - Condoleeza Rice is also German-speaking and attended Catholic school.

I offer all this important trivia for no other reason than to stir up additional gossip.

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 21, 2006 12:06 PM

---

JJ Joseph,

Religious affiliation information is practically useless these days, isn't it? All the "Catholics" in politics who take decidedly anti-Catholic stances on just about every social/moral issue that's brought up have just about eliminated the value of the word 'affiliation' itself.

Wouldn't it be nice, though, if politicians actually were what they claimed to be? Why, people might actually know whom to vote for. We may end up with a country led by moral human beings. We may even learn to trust our own government to take care of our interests.

Nah, that would never work. Since Canada is so diverse, it's better to just claim to be the most innocuous thing you can think of, and then act however you want. I'm surprised that more politicians don't claim to be agnostic or atheist... then again, that wouldn't make them seem like they have a solid moral foundation. I guess it's all about perception and the gullibility of the Canadian population.

I wonder if there ever were days when politicians behaved according to the codes of ethics prescribed by the religions to which they claim to have affiliation. Oh yeah, there was Hilaire Belloc, but he was in England at the start of the last century, and he was French.

Best regards.

Posted by: Stephen M at October 21, 2006 03:02 PM

---

Stephen M
"Religious affiliation information is practically useless these days ..."

Not when you try to figure out who's likely to run with whom. Just think of what would have happened if Belinda had succeeded in grabbing the Tory leadership. She would have pulled in at least 5% more votes from other lapsed Catholics within Liberal ranks and won a clear majority. You see, lapsed Catholics, being divorced, shallow and insincere, tend to cross party lines and vote for each other. They follow the catholic leaders. For example, Tories never win in Quebec without a Catholic leader (think Clark, Turner, Mulroney).

After losing the Tory leadership tussle, Belinda had no more business within the Tory camp, and went home to the Liberals, the home of most lapsed Catholics, where she anticipated a lapsed Catholic win at the polls and a permanent cabinet position. Her endless narcissism, however, prevents her from seeing herself (and the Liberals) like the rest of us do.

You see, knowing the religious affiliations of our politicians helps us to foresee their trashy little plots well in advance. But it also should remind us that the Conservatives rarely succeed in Quebec without a Catholic leader. Small wonder that MacKay is ticked - he could have been shagging the Prime Minister in German by now if her plan had succeeded. Ach liebe!

Now that Condoleeza Rice, there's a pretty little thing! And, she speaks German, too! And she went to Catholic school...

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 21, 2006 04:54 PM

---

Should Peter apologize to his Boss?
Should Peter apologize to BELINDA!?
Should Peter apologize to Women?
NO, No and NO.
This is nothing more than stupid, inane nonsense. The desperate Liberals are looking for some much needed attention to their nothingness.
Any women who fall for this Liberal crap are not paying attention to the larger picture.
It would serve them well to read Christie Blatchford's column in today's Globe and Mail, it's so right on.

Posted by: Biddy at October 21, 2006 05:03 PM

---

Janke, This is a domestic spat between to ex-lovers and *DOG* is the mildest of all possible invectives.

While Belinda and the Librano$ sidetrack Canada*s wheelhouse with this, we are headed for the rocks.

Wouldn*t it be funny if becuase of sensitive times just before an election, the US administration continued to pull punches in the ME, failed to hold the fort against the infidel world fatwa, unleashing an unstoppable avalanche swarm of jihadist cells who quickly, with razor edged shmitars, shaped us into queasy bearded ragheaded bhurka wearing dhimmi slaves?

Now theres an exciting cultural shift for you.

BTW, I was amazed to learn that Nuclear power plants were being propped up by powerful invested lobby groups and the techplan is outdated, inefficient, costing us a fortune thru it*s specialized secret [security, y*know], fraudulent public funds rip-off.

In fact, world class,[Germen tech experts],state that the nuke gen system should have been in the Tech Museum by now.

What are Nuke plants for then? They make the greatest bombs you ever saw.

Google *BendGovernment* for proof & links. = TG

Link to the pro- nuke lobby there too.

Posted by: TonyGuitar at October 21, 2006 05:09 PM

---

OOPS, replace "looking for" with "getting some much needed attention for their nothingness" in above post!

Posted by: Biddy at October 21, 2006 05:55 PM

---

I'm another person totally opposed to your proposition, Angry, as I have heard far worse in QP over the last 3 years which was totally ignored by the other parties & the MSM.

Fact is, Mr. McKay did not do anything except answer that slimeball McGuinty's jibe with a rather witty quip. In no way was this prejudicial to women (or wymin, or whatever the sigruntled members of the S.O.W. want to be called nowadays), and in no way does he owe anyone an apology. Truth be known, ever since that assw**e Truuudeau darkened the Parliamentary Chamber, the Libs have been allowed to bully, smear, steal & plunder everyone and everything, and the MSM has done nothing except to clap them on the back with a "Well done, boys!"

Now, with an honest, real government in place, one which is constantly still under attack by the MSM, we have an opportunity to support their policies. If you honestly look at what the CPC has managed to accomplish in less than one year in office, you have to realize that they deserve our support and backing, and not be misled by every false lead the MSM comes up with to bash the conservatives. If we fall for that, it just proves how brainwashed we've all become by over a decade of propaganda by the 'Entitled to Their Entitlements' Party.

Posted by: Alienated at October 21, 2006 07:48 PM

---

Biddy recommended:
"...read Christie Blatchford's column in today's Globe and Mail, it's so right on."

It costs $4.95 to read Blatchford's column on the Globe's website, and the newstand is all sold out. I guess I'll just have to imagine what she said. Did she say,"Who really cares?" Or that the whiners should just stick it in their ear and move on? Did she join the chorus that insists that MacKay should go down on his knees in public and apologize and resign? Or did she say MacKay should have bellowed out for the record,"You've got the treacherous dog already!" Help us poor bloggers out! We're dying to know!

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 21, 2006 09:12 PM

---

Steve,

You are out in left field on this one. Peter does not owe Belinda the time of day nor does he owe her an apology. Belinda is a homewrecker, a disgrace to motherhood and a disgrace to females in general. She is a predator who has no morals, integrity, or self-respect. Flaunting her relationship with Ti Domi before the ink on his divorce papers is dry is disgusting and classless. She is an expensive, useless decoration that has only gotten this far in life because of the men who keep her or the men who promote her. Where would she be without Daddy's money? For God sakes, she could not even hold down a gratuitous job in Daddy's company!

Belinda is a dog, and that is one on the kindest names that comes to mind.

Peter McKay should be applauded for his quick and humorous reparte. If Belinda can't stand the heat, then she should stay home, stick her to knitting, and wear a chastity belt! She does not deserve an ounce of sympathy.

The fuss should not be about Belinda, but instead for her kids, who must continually suffer their Mother's all too public pecadilloes.

Posted by: gypsy4950 at October 21, 2006 09:21 PM

---

Lets see if we have this story straight shall we.

David McGuinty was the one that made a reference to a dog, not MacKay.
Apparently, as the liberals claim, he gestured towards an empty chair and made a comment that they (meaning liberals) already had her.
The liberals claim that this implies that not only did MacKay call Belinda a dog (even though she was absent from the house) but that this was also an indication that the conservatives are anti-women.
(cue video clip here of last elections leadership debate when Bucky Dither's did his NWSC hail Mary)
I guess Harper's comments about liberals being anti-Israel must have hit a nerve eh?

Sucks to be them.

Posted by: gimbol at October 21, 2006 09:29 PM

---

Peter should have taken the high road and kept his thoughts to himself. This has taken attention away from his and this government's work. It's like dropping your gun for opponents to pick up and use against you. That's the bottom line.

Posted by: dubyadubya at October 21, 2006 09:33 PM

---

While CTV and the Liberal masses that dominate Canada turn themselves into pretzels over a comment that is not at all unusual for the type of jabs that are tossed across the House floor… Canadian soldiers are dieing while protecting road building crews. Yet, this story, which is a total non-story, has made a bigger splash on CTV and in some of Canada’s media than the killings of our soldiers in the past few weeks.

I personally loath “progressive” journalists for exactly this kind of thing. They are small, tiny, little wieners who can hardly hide their hate of conservatives. And, I am disappointed in rightwing bloggers who fall for MSM disingenuous propaganda.

Let’s get back to issues that really mean something. After all, most people who fault MacKay on this one will never vote conservative anyway; so who gives a damn what MSM slime balls think. The CTV online poll says it all… I hope Craig Oliver soiled his Stanfields when he saw the results.

Posted by: Debris Trail at October 21, 2006 09:56 PM

---

Apologize, Peter Mckay should do no such thing, he never made the comments, if he did who cares. It is all about politics, the Liberals trying to get points with the voters.
Belinda, forget it you switch parties, sleep with everyone around. Get over it, you are no saint.....

Posted by: Ray at October 21, 2006 11:05 PM

---

Remember guys, I don't think he owes her an apology. He might do well to offer one anyway -- but that's entirely up to him, because this is a personal and private issue.

That's the point. It's personal and private. He owes us an apology for letting his personal and private situation colour his behaviour in the House of Commons.

Posted by: Steve Janke at October 22, 2006 06:50 AM

---

Debris Trail: Right on!!

MacKay doesn't owe an apology to anyone. If they start demanding apologies and apologizing for the crap they banter around behind the scenes in the (MAD) House nothing else will get done.

It's a disgrace and the most disgraceful was Duffy's Show Friday with Jane Taber, who talked about nothing else.

APOLOGIZE FOR ALLEGED INNUENDO TO AN EMPTY CHAIR?
GIVE US A BREAK.

Posted by: Biddy at October 22, 2006 07:11 AM

---

Steve,
Heckling has always gone on in the HOC and always will. What went on here is an everyday exchange and I don't think Peter's four word rebuttal (which took all of about a second to spew out) to an obvious personal shot by McGuinty, is really that much of a waste of taxpayers time or money. And it can hardly be referred to as "squabbling" which infers an ongoing bickering on the topic. Peter has said nothing more than those few words since, except to briefly respond to an frenzied press with apparently little else of value to report.
As for Belinda's indignation, and championing respect for all women - that's rich!
Let's move on to matters for discussion that have some merit.

Posted by: Guffman at October 22, 2006 10:23 AM

---

This is a ridiculous issue....if he apologized for it at the beginning it would have been done with, assuming he needed to.

Other than that....the tactics of this are to keep stonewalling and change the channel. It works for every other political party. Liberal, Conservatove or Socialist.

The speaker, quite honestly should call all house leaders into his chamber and knock their heads together, the speaker ruled so respect the office and stop it!

Posted by: Stephen at October 22, 2006 11:22 AM

---

Steve Janke: "That's the point. It's personal and private. He owes us an apology for letting his personal and private situation colour his behaviour in the House of Commons."

Again, I disagree, as it appears do the majority of your readers. You make it appear that the four parties in the House have behaved civilly to each other during QP & always maintained decorum during what is often a very heated Q&A session. I'm sure you have read Hansard, and watched QP during the Liberal's long reign to remember their arrogance in NEVER answering policy questions to the opposition's queries, their derogatory & snide comments about Preston Manning, Deb Grey, Joe Clark, Stockwell Day, Rona Ambrose & Stephen Harper... the list goes on and on, with personal attacks the accepted order of the day. Now when the shoe is on the other foot, and our government has a chance to do something positive for Canadians, they are STILL being attacked, even seemingly by fellow conservatives, who fall for the Liberal trick that it is all right for THEM to do anything they want, because only THEY can dictate how the H of C will function. When I hear Stephen Harper stand up and tell someone in the opposite side to F*** O**! as that parasite Trooodeau did, and be lauded for his witticism by the MSM, I know we will have reached parity as a Canadian political party.

Posted by: Alienated at October 22, 2006 11:33 AM

---

Would the MSM et al demand an apology if it was a Liberal or NDP member who was being accused? Of course not. However, MacKay should apologize for two simple reasons:

(1) It would show a lot of class, something that appears to be sorely lacking in the H of C these days, and could go some ways to restoring a modicum(sp?) of civility in political discourse (boy am I ever being naive now that I think over what I just typed?). The less a person owes someone else an apology, the better that person will come off for nevertheless giving it.

(2) It will remove a needless distraction from the government's accomplishments, which are many and positive.

Posted by: at October 22, 2006 04:56 PM

---

Sorry for not including my personal info in the a bove 4:56 PM post.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at October 22, 2006 04:58 PM

---

JJ Joseph:
The Christie Blatchford article on the McKay/dog nonsense is worth digging in the recycle bin for.
It started off:
"Woof".
"I am that one woman in Canada to whom Foreign Affairs Minister Peter McKay should not apologize for the alleged "dog" comment he allegedly made this week in alleged reference to his former girlfriend and now alleged Tie Domi love interest Belinda Stronach".

Another exerpt:
"As we all know, these days, it's not what anyone actually says that is the issue, but how the recipient of the thing that was or wasn't said feels about what was said, or not, as it happens.
It doesn't even matter if a thing was said but how the people it was said about interpret it"

Another exerpt:
"I found the remark funny when I thought Mr. McKay said it, because it's exactly the juvenile sort of thing I say in the ordinary course of my juvenile life among my juvenile friends, and if there's a better definition of Question Period in this Country, I haven't seen it. You don't believe me, peruse the Hansard of that very day and work your way through all the bizarre references to "low hanging fruit"(no alleged reference to Ms Stronach, though one supposes in a few years it could be, allegedly).
No one crying now about unparliamentary language or behaviour has ever sat through one of these suckers."

I agree with Christie Blatchford's take on it.
You can get the drift of just how damned silly this whole thing is.

Posted by: Biddy at October 22, 2006 05:02 PM

---

You should apologize to Peter McKay, Steve.

Do you have any evidence that McKay called her a dog? None. You don't even claim any.

You owe Peter a public apology, printed here, on your blog.

Posted by: Christoph at October 22, 2006 09:25 PM

---

I have to admit that that I'm with those who don't think that MacKay owes Belinda an apology. It's one thing for an MP to switch sides over a genuine, heartfelt, disagreement over policy. But Belinda jumped ship simply because she lost the Conservative leadership contest and saw her chance to become PM fly out the window. She was a mole, a treacherous dog, within Tory ranks, hoping to lever her Catholic faith into a clumsy grab for power.

It didn't work, and she was exposed. Nothing left to do but bail out back to her home side. She wasn't an opportunist, she was a treacherous dog who was exposed. We're seeing more of her character revealed daily, and it's not pretty.

Peter MacKay was rightly pissed to have been the inside contact for this deception, which shows some immaturity and recklessness. What we do have to be watchful of now is the possibility that if MacKay, a Catholic, were leader of the Conservatives, he could probably pull off a majority in any election. That is, if he is a Catholic. And that's why it's nice to know what an MP's faith is.

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 22, 2006 10:26 PM

---

Why don't the Conservatives check some of Trudeau's bon mots, well documented in Hansard? The Liberals would really have something to feign shock and awe about.

Dogs beg don't they?
If Belinda is begging for an apology could be she really is a dog. Sorry about that Fido!
May as well continue the childish nuttieness, that's what the Liberals prefer instead of the Country's real important business.
They're the Opposition, we gotta answer them.

Posted by: Biddy at October 23, 2006 10:36 AM

---

I think Jack Layton has it right. MacKay should apologize or resign, and failing that, be fired. This isn't MacKay's first sexist outburst, there was his earlier remark to Alexa MacDonough that she should "stick to her knitting", or words to that effect.

I used to think MacKay was a pretty smart guy, but lately he's been looking a bit stupid. Time to show some smarts by apologizing and moving on.

Posted by: Budd C ampbell at October 23, 2006 11:06 AM

---

"This isn't MacKay's first sexist outburst, there was his earlier remark to Alexa MacDonough that she should "stick to her knitting", or words to that effect."

That is not a sexist remark.It is a common saying down east about focusing on what you should be doing,along those lines.My wife who's a newfie says it to me sometimes.Should i demand an apology Budd?Layton knows that but is just trying to be his useless slimeball self misquoting the truth.

Posted by: paulsstuff at October 23, 2006 11:32 AM

---

I saw Ti Domi walking in downtown Toronto, he had his leaf blower with him.

Posted by: RM at October 23, 2006 11:39 AM

---

OK, if any one in the present government calls the Member from Newmarket/Aurora a Leaf Blower in the House,
THEN.... and only then...
will I alter my opinion and agree that an apology should be issued.

Mind you, it would be worth it, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Alienated at October 23, 2006 11:48 AM

---

sheesh ..all I was going to do was call her the world richest (and oldest) puck bunny...

Posted by: at October 23, 2006 11:49 AM

---

One should never apologize for speaking the truth. I thought the left was all about "speaking truth to power".

Posted by: J. Strong at October 23, 2006 01:20 PM

---

That is not a sexist remark.It is a common saying down east about focusing on what you should be doing,along those lines.My wife who's a newfie says it to me sometimes.Should i demand an apology Budd?Layton knows that but is just trying to be his useless slimeball self misquoting the truth.

Posted by: paulsstuff at October 23, 2006

I don't accept what you're saying. The remark is clearly a gender based stereotype, knitting being a typically female activity in which very, very few men take part. I find it hard to believe that your wife says it to you. I think you're stretching credulity beyond acceptable limits with that bald faced assertion.

As for your use of the term "slimeball" to describe Jack Layton, I think that's completely inaccurate and totally unfair. I find Layton to be a man of genuine character, an honest and intelligent public man, and I don't appreciate your cheap and crude attempt to make him out as someone rather like yourself.

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 23, 2006 02:03 PM

---

Budd Campbell:
You are WRONG. "Stick to your knitting"is a very common saying/phrase in the East,came all the way from Ireland.
Furthermore Peter got sick of the natter about it and apologized to Alexlax anyway and he did it on National TV when they were both on CTV Sunday Question Period many months ago.
Time everybody smarten the hell up and realize it's not about women, it's all about desperate Political opportunism on the part of the Opposition
It may be noted, the Bloc are not wasting time on it.

Posted by: Biddy at October 23, 2006 03:25 PM

---

Hey Budd,
Saw yer bud Jackass Laydown on QP today, and must say I was quite impressed.

For the first time in months, he was asking one of his pointless questions and wasn't playing with his privates with his left hand! No, really, he can actually talk without holding on to his pecker for inspiration.

Posted by: Alienated at October 23, 2006 03:40 PM

---

Get over it, Budd. If women are the hot house flowers you pretend them to be, none of us would be here.

If you insist on "protecting the honour" of thin-skinned, hypocritical, humourless feminists, that's your preogative. But count me and other reality based Canadian females definitely out.

Posted by: lookout at October 23, 2006 04:05 PM

---

Budd Campbell:
You are WRONG. "Stick to your knitting"is a very common saying/phrase in the East,came all the way from Ireland.
Furthermore Peter got sick of the natter about it and apologized to Alexlax anyway and he did it on National TV when they were both on CTV Sunday Question Period many months ago.

Posted by: Biddy at October 23, 2006 03:25 PM

Hey Budd,
Saw yer bud Jackass Laydown on QP today, and must say I was quite impressed.

For the first time in months, he was asking one of his pointless questions and wasn't playing with his privates with his left hand! No, really, he can actually talk without holding on to his pecker for inspiration.

Posted by: Alienated at October 23, 2006 03:40 PM

Get over it, Budd. If women are the hot house flowers you pretend them to be, none of us would be here.

If you insist on "protecting the honour" of thin-skinned, hypocritical, humourless feminists, that's your preogative. But count me and other reality based Canadian females definitely out.

Posted by: lookout at October 23, 2006 04:05 PM

If one subtracts the "intellectual contribution" to this discussion of 'Alienated' from that of 'lookout', ... you end up with Zero. Thanks for that, Alienated, you're helping out more than you can ever know.

As for Biddy, his "Alexlax" moniker puts him in the same bed as Alienated, which is a shame since he makes what might be a valid point. If it's true MacKay apologized for this on CTV some time ago, that's a good sign that he can dig his way out of this thing yet. All he has to do is issue another apology, and everything's fine.

Biddy, how you can pretend that the "stick to your knitting" comment is not a gender based stereo type, I have no idea. But for some the blogosphere is a kind of alternative reality where anything can be true as long three other posters are peddling the same rhubbish.

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 23, 2006 05:13 PM

---

I think we're all missing the point. This has nothing to do with Belinda. It has to do with what's OFF TV if Her Blondeness in on - i.e., Rona Ambrose defending her Clean Air Act.

Rona's cool, smart, competent and makes every feminist whiner in Parliament look like the screamers they are. She's too good.

So look at what we're seeing on TV. Is it Rona? Nope, it's The Bimbo who draws the gawkers and then sits back while that scuzzbucket who's married to another T.O. scuzzbucket named Jack drips venom about Male Aggression, yadda-yadda. (Check it out on Mike Duffy Live.)

They'll get back to the Environment. But with Rona defending it against those Male Aggressors from the Libby side of the House? Uh-unh. It'll be Mike Duffy doing "commentary" and the usual media patter.

No Rona. It's all about ducking Rona. The operative word isn't Woof-Woof. It's Quack-Quack.

Tell Rona she rocks. Don't let them duck her. They want to argue environment, let them argue it with a conservative woman whose qualitifications for being a minister is something other than guaranteed Post Traumatic Strees Disorder when she shows up for Question Period.

Posted by: recovering liberal at October 23, 2006 06:31 PM

---

P.S., Budd, it's "rubbish".

Posted by: lookout at October 23, 2006 09:21 PM

---

Hmmmm... Belinda betrayed Peter to almost in almost Shakespearean heights both politically and personally and, demonstrating her character, she's now having sex with Tie, a married man.

Dalton brought up the dog comment (Peter didn't even mention it or say the word) and apparently this is yet another common eastern expression and he said, "You already have her."

That can be read two ways, both common eastern expression and perhaps a sly put down.

Well, I commend Peter for his grace in all of this, he should have said, "That two-timing power-hungry adulterous whore... you've already got her."

At least that would have been less offensive toward dogs. He owes Belinda no apology. Belinda only owed him one as she does Leanne. And God, something Budd will have no concern with.

Posted by: Christoph at October 24, 2006 02:16 AM

---

Oh, right, and an apology to Tie and Leanne's three children.

Posted by: Christoph at October 24, 2006 02:17 AM

---

"Rona's cool, smart, competent and makes every feminist whiner in Parliament look like the screamers they are. She's too good.

So look at what we're seeing on TV. Is it Rona? Nope, it's The Bimbo who draws the gawkers and then sits back while that scuzzbucket who's married to another T.O. scuzzbucket named Jack drips venom about Male Aggression, yadda-yadda. (Check it out on Mike Duffy Live.)"

Posted by: recovering liberal at October 23, 2006

You're the scuzzbucket, recovering liberal. And I hope the media focus in on Tories like yourself early and often. That will help Jack Layton to win the London area byelection.

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 24, 2006 10:54 AM

---

"As for your use of the term "slimeball" to describe Jack Layton, I think that's completely inaccurate and totally unfair"

Hey Budd,Layton came on tv and said Afghanistan villages were being bombed as did NDP mp Peggy Nash.He and she both implied it was Canadian troops bombing these villages till they were called on it by Jason Kenney.

Any leader of a party who misleads with something as outragous as that to gain political points is far worse than a slimeball,but if i wrote what Layton really is it would not print it.

And the knitting comment,as i and others have told you is an eastern Canada expression used towards both men and women down there.

And the next time Layton says he speaks for most Canadians,its more like 18%,which is about where they have been in the polls as far back as anyone remembers.Even Bob Rae saw the light,just a little to late for Ontario.

Posted by: paulsstuff at October 24, 2006 03:48 PM

---

He should apologize for diving into the hurly-burly of Parliament and giving better than he gets? What the hell was he put in Parliament for?

Posted by: ebt at October 24, 2006 04:16 PM

---

Steve, TangoJuliette has a point: Whose side are you on?

When you go so far as to say, "...there is some debate [as to whether Peter MacKay really insulted Belinda Stronach or not], but let's say he did," you sound like you are on the side of the Liberals. Or, at BEST, you are conceding WAY to much to the Liberals.

We as Conservatives should stop being on the the defensive and start going on the offensive! If the Liberals continue to press this potentially slanderous accusation against Peter MacKay, we should demand that they PROVE IT! We should demand that they either prove the accusations that they have made, or that they admit that they have been lying all along, and that they both formally apologize to Mr. MacKay for knowingly falsely accusing him of something that he didn't do, and to all Canadians for deliberately misleading Canadians with this lie. But above all, we Conservatives should demand that the Liberals do ONE OR THE OTHER!

Steve, why aren't you, and other influential Conservatives like you, using your influence to put more pressure on the Liberals to do that kind of thing?

Posted by: Mr_Harvey at October 27, 2006 04:00 PM

---

Steve, TangoJuliette has a point: Whose side are you on?

When you go so far as to say, "...there is some debate [as to whether Peter MacKay really insulted Belinda Stronach or not], but let's say he did," you sound like you are on the side of the Liberals. Or, at BEST, you are conceding WAY to much to the Liberals.

We as Conservatives should stop being on the the defensive and start going on the offensive! If the Liberals continue to press this potentially slanderous accusation against Peter MacKay, we should demand that they PROVE IT! We should demand that they either prove the accusations that they have made, or that they admit that they have been lying all along, and that they both formally apologize to Mr. MacKay for knowingly falsely accusing him of something that he didn't do, and to all Canadians for deliberately misleading Canadians with this lie. But above all, we Conservatives should demand that the Liberals do ONE OR THE OTHER!

Steve, why aren't you, and other influential Conservatives like you, using your influence to put more pressure on the Liberals to do that kind of thing?

Posted by: Mr_Harvey at October 27, 2006 04:00 PM

---