Sunday, January 08, 2006

The Source

Before people go insane over the Normand Lester book, due to cause a stir tomorrow, consider the source.

I'll admit that I'm not familiar with Mr. Lester, but Paul Wells and Fuddle Duddle show, he's clearly not the most credible source. I don't for a second think Harper and Layton will lay off since it's not their job to make Paul Martin's life easy, but I would hope that the mainstream media will take what Mr. Lester writes with a grain of salt.


  • It could be Satan himself writing that book, but if it's got the facts, details and documentation to back up the charges then its credible.

    I understand the evidence is definitive.

    Given that Heritage Canada called in the RCMP when they found out it was being released, it's a safe bet the book has the goods.

    This will be huge. Martin will not recover from it.

    The final nail in the coffin.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:58 p.m.  

  • Biff just posted what I had wanted to say.

    Why does it seem that everytime you try to bring something up to a Liberal their first response is to try and smear the source?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:07 a.m.  

  • Heh Calgary Grit;

    You must be a fan of the late Badger Bob Johnson, coach of the Calgary Flames in the 80's when they had that fantastic rivalry going with the Oilers. (Who usually won)

    When the Flames were down a goal or two and the reporters would ask Bob, How are you doin? He would reply, "We got them, right where we want them".

    No, the Libs have reasons to be optimistic. They have the smartest leader. They have the best war room. They have the press on their side. All that plus they have a monopoly on Canadian Values. They registerd a patent on it and trademarked it eons ago. Canadian valu...excuse me, I mean voters understand that.

    How does the optimist poem go?

    As he jumped out the window
    And passed each window bar
    He said, alright so far!

    Its just that darn sudden stop that screws everything up

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:21 a.m.  

  • Ah, anonymous... it's tough to sort through the layers of irony here. You accuse the Liberals of using ad hominem arguments to defend themselves. But then, your point is ad hominem itself.

    I'm so confused: do two wrongs make a right in this case?

    By Blogger Dale, at 12:30 a.m.  

  • Kegger,

    yeah, we're all aware of the old "cause the rise in seperatism, then use the rise in seperatism to one's benefit" thing the Libs have down pat.

    Usually it's the sword. This time it's the shield. Same garbage though.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:42 a.m.  

  • I don't know the backround on this Lester fellow, but if you want discredit him and put him in his place, then just offer up proof that what he has to say is wrong. If it is in fact true, then I am afraid the fact he is a separatist/racist/anglo hater or what ever else you can label him is beside the point.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:48 a.m.  

  • " They have the best war room."

    Not sure Kinsella would agree with this.

    Horny Toad

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:52 a.m.  

  • This is sooooo old news. I'm already looking forward to the next scandal...

    By Blogger NorthBayTrapper, at 12:59 a.m.  

  • Paul Wells doesn't like him (he's entitled to do so, I suppose), but in Quebec, when Normand Lester publishes something, people take notice and listen to what he has to say.

    No wonder why the Option Canada story has such long legs in Quebec.

    By Blogger bouchecl, at 10:01 a.m.  

  • Kegger - so, how do you feel about Scott Reid? John Duffy?

    As has been said above - if Lester can produce facts and evidence that support his assertions, then his history and personal beliefs are irrelevant. If he cannot, they remain equally irrelevant.

    By Blogger deaner, at 12:32 p.m.  

  • Kegger,

    I understand your feelings of ill will toward the guy, but ignoring facts depending on who the messenger is a dangerous thing - as is believing everything from someone viewed as highly credible where the facts don't support what they're saying.

    Divorce the facts/evidence from the person, then decide.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:51 p.m.  

  • deaner; I think John Duffy's literary works need to be taken with a grain of salt given his partisanship, just as Lester's need to be.

    I don't have a problem with looking at the facts, but people should double check what he says before jumping to conclusions.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 12:52 p.m.  

  • "I don't have a problem with looking at the facts, but people should double check what he says before jumping to conclusions."

    That's fair enough - and we should be more skeptical of someone who has a demonstrated axe to grind (although you can't assume that any political commentator doesn't have their own axe to grind). My point was that it would be just as much of a mistake to immediately discount anything Lester says, simply because of who he is - I guess we are really talking about Type I and Type II errors.

    My comment regarding Duffy was in response to Kegger objecting to "someone who had insulted him gaining legitimacy..." I think Duffy has been more than insulting enough for that rule-of-thumb to disqualify him for any coverage for the balance of this campaign and the next! Of course, in the next campaign he will be a media talking head, since the Liberals will clear out the trash after this outing.

    By Blogger deaner, at 3:42 p.m.  

  • Antonio at Fuddle Duddle essentially dismisses Lester's points because he considers Lester to be a stupid individual.

    To which anyone, including Lester, could reply that Fuddle Duddle is a stupid blog and that its assertions should not be taken too seriously.

    You see, that's the problem with the ad hominem attack. It doesn't get you anywhere. Read Lester's book, listen to what he has to say and judge for yourself based on his points, not his person.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:47 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home