Category: Politics

Newly-elected Federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is in deep, deep, deep political doo doo. He is practically drowning in the brown goo. You could barely see his manly and wavy dark hair above the political crap that has engulfed him. And is threatening to capsize the good ship “Moonbeams and Unicorns,” on its first Liberal maiden voyage.

You know Trudeau is in deep political trouble, when the NDP come to the defense of their mortal enemy, the hard right Conservative Prime Minister Harper. And together they hammer the fair Justin for his insensitive comments about the vile Boston terrorist attack.

Hath hell frozen over?

Are those the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse over yonder?

Is the end of the world nigh?

And if the world ends, will I finally be able to break my permanent Rogers’ smartphone contract?

These are the thoughts that went through my mind as I watched online yesterday, CBC’s Evan Solomon as he interviewed a political panel of Tory MP Candace Bergen, NDP Public Safety critic Randall Garrison, and Liberal critic Dominic LeBlanc.

The issue was Trudeau’s apparent insensitive comments about the Boston bomb attack. Which comments Trudeau conveyed in an interview with CBC Peter Mansbridge. That aired on CBC on Tuesday.

(Note to my loyal American readers, all four of you. Canada does have other television channels, aside from the CBC. That supply us with our daily fix of “American Idol”, “The Voice” and “Dancing with The Washed Up Stars.” Some of us even have cable.)

In the Mansbridge interview, Trudeau appeared to pay mere lip service to the tragedy of those victims who were killed and maimed. What he did not do in that interview, at the beginning of the interview, was forcefully condemn the terrorist attack and the terrorists who did such vile things.

What Trudeau did do, however, was to launch into a barely coherent apparent rationalization for the terrorists’ behavior. He speculated that these terrorists may feel excluded from American society. And it was very important to understand the tensions in American society and to understand the root causes of this behavior. As if American society was to blame for producing the conditions which led to this terrible tragedy. As if the victims were somehow at fault.

Prime Minster Harper in London, upon hearing and reading Trudeau’s comments, reacted by stating that as Prime Minster, he categorically condemned the terrorist attacks and he hoped the terrorists would be dealt with as harshly as possible.

Evan Solomon then interviewed the three political MPs.

Naturally, the Tory MP supported Harper’s views and called upon Justin Trudeau to clarify his comments.

The Liberal MP Leblanc naturally defended Trudeau’s comments and in turn criticized Harper for politicizing the Boston bomb attack for partisan advantage.

But when it came to the NDP Garrison’s turn, he seemed transformed. Momentarily transfixed. Then Randall Garrison realized that probably for the first time in his political life, he will be coming to the defense of his party’s mortal enemy, Stephen Harper. But as a true politician, Randall realized that Harper was right and that Trudeau had royally screwed up his CBC interview. And that Trudeau was politically vulnerable over his insensitive comments about the Boston bomb attack.

Randall Harrison then lambasted Trudeau and called his comments, “mystifying, troubling, and disturbing.” He could not understand why instead of worrying about the victims and the first responders, Justin Trudeau was caught up worrying about the mental state of the terrorists. To Garrison, this was very disturbing.

To me this was historic. This was epic.

In all my years covering politics and commenting on politics, I have never seen or experienced the left wing NDP willingly and happily embrace the views of Stephen Harper. Who is like the anti-Christ to all leftist followers.

But Randall Garrison did the politically impossible. He leaped right in and defended Harper’s harsh criticism of Trudeau. And then he turned to his Liberal adversary, Dominic LeBlanc and characterized Trudeau’s Boston bomb comments as “mystifying, troubling and disturbing.”

You should see the look on Leblanc’s face. Utter astonishment.

Now that is great must-see TV. That is great drama.

Better than scandal. Better than revenge. Even better than “Dallas II.”

But I must commend Dominic Leblanc. He is a true pro.

He stood his ground. And he strongly defended Trudeau’s comments.

Leblanc argued forcefully that in fact Trudeau had strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in the Mansbridge interview.

But this is precisely the point.

Check out the transcript of Trudeau’s initial comments.

He did not forcefully condemn the bomb attack or the terrorists, when he should have, immediately and at the beginning of the interview, when Mansbridge asked him how he would respond as Prime Minister.

Instead, Trudeau stressed his concern about the terrorists. As Randall Garrison stated, it was disturbing that Trudeau was unduly concerned about the mental state of the terrorists. Trudeau seemed more concerned about the root causes of their actions, than the victims themselves.

And still Justin Trudeau has refused to publicly clarify his comments.

And still he has refused to publicly apologize to the victims, their families and to the Americans.

And he won’t.

Because he is trust fund Justin. The son of Pierre Trudeau.

He believes himself to be the entitled heir to the position of Prime Minister.

And the Liberal Party still believes that it is Canada’s Natural Governing Party.

This is the partial transcript of the Monday interview between CBC’s Peter Mansbridgeand Justin Trudeau, the new Leader of the Federal Liberal Party. Read it and weep.

PETER MANSBRIDGE (HOST, CBC’S “MANSBRIDGE ONE ON ONE”):
(Ottawa — Monday) Let me try to ask this as fairly as I can, because it’s only a couple of hours after something has happened that clearly was not an accident, in Boston. People have died, many people are injured. You’re the Canadian prime minister, what do you do?

JUSTIN TRUDEAU (LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA):
First thing, you offer support and sympathy and condolences and, you know, can we send down, you know, EMTs or, I mean, as we contributed after 9/11? I mean, is there any material immediate support we have we can offer? And then at the same time, you know, over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes. Now we don’t know now whether it was, you know, terrorism or a single crazy or, you know, a domestic issue or a foreign issue, I mean, all of those questions. But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society. And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from? I mean, yes, we need to make sure that we’re promoting security and we’re, you know, keeping our borders safe and, you know, monitoring the kinds of, you know, violent subgroups that happen around. But we also have to monitor and encourage people to not point fingers at each other and lay blame for personal ills or societal ills on a specific group, whether it be the West or the government or Bostonians or whatever it is, because it’s that idea of dividing humans against ourselves, of pointing out that they’re not like us and, you know, in order to achieve our political goals we can kill innocents here. That’s something that no society in the world that is healthy, regardless of ideology, will accept.

Just Justin, being Justin.

These comments display an ignorance and insensitivity that know no bounds.

Justin’s comments are simply appallingly stupid.

These comments reflect the mind of a naïve, content-free man child, in a grown man’s body.

My neighbor’s 16-year-old son has more common sense and native intelligence, than Canada’s latest Federal Liberal leader.

In response to a very simple question by Peter Mansbridge, as to what he (Justin Trudeau) would do as Canada’s Prime Minister. Justin Trudeau barely pays lip service to the suffering of the victims and their families of these terrible terrorist bomb attacks.

Instead, Justin focuses on what he thinks should be our main concern, not the victims, or their families, or how this unspeakable event happened. But we should be sensitive to the feelings and thoughts of the terrorists themselves and ask ourselves what are the root causes?

In other words, according to Justin, these terrorists are not really at fault.

It is something in American society, (or Canadian society) that is at fault.

There is something in American society ( or Canadian society) that seems to exclude these poor misunderstood individuals.

Trudeau then seems to suggest that the fault may lie with Americans, (or Canadians, as the case may be). That is, those in American society (or Canadian society), or in the West, or in the American government or even Bostonians themselves. All these parties, who point fingers at others because they are different.

Trudeau apparently concludes that it is Americans who create the tensions in their own society, that apparently cause these poor misunderstood terrorists to feel excluded from American society. And in turn this feeling of exclusion makes these terrorists feel at war with innocents and at war with American society.

Recall that Justin Trudeau used to be a teacher and an educator. And he has placed a great premium on education as the new Federal Liberal leader. Ironically, the lessons of 9/11 have completely eluded him.

The architect of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was not a poor misunderstood man who felt excluded from American society or Saudi Arabian society. Bin Laden, like many of the perpetrators of 9/11, were educated middle class and upper middle class members of their respective societies.

They attacked America and other western institutions in Europe, Africa and in other parts of the world, for many reasons. For revenge, and for strategic, cultural and religious reasons. None of these reasons arose out of their feelings of being excluded from western society. Or from being misunderstood or from feelings of being labeled different.

Note in Trudeau’s above comments, he appears to give equal moral weight to monitoring those people who point fingers at minorities as to monitoring violent subgroups.

The tragic reality is that the Boston Marathon terrorists killed three innocent people and injured over 170 people. To date, 13 of those injured have lost their limbs. Many suffer from life threatening lung damage, brain damage and stomach damage. Many of the injured will never recover and will face many more years of operations and years of healing. But Justin Trudeau seems more concerned about those who have the gall to point fingers at minorities and treat them differently.

When in 1970 Pierre Trudeau was faced with Quebec terrorists who kidnapped James Cross and killed Pierre Laporte and had engaged in mailbox bombings, he did not stare at his navel and worry about what the root causes of these terrorist actions were. Pierre Trudeau acted decisively and called in the armed forces, invoked The War Measures Act, suspended civil liberties and put down Quebec terrorists before the contagion spread throughout the province.

It is devastatingly clear now that when the Federal Liberals elected Justin Trudeau, they thought they were getting the son of Pierre Trudeau. Instead, the Federal Liberals are being led by the son of Maggie Trudeau.

Maggie Trudeau is a lovely, warm and affectionate woman. But by her own admission, she was bored by Canadian politics and the affairs of state. She was most happy as a hippie. A flower child. Boogying with the Stones and tiptoeing through the tulips. Justin, like her mother, is a romantic, a dreamer and a simple innocent.

He appears to be blithely chasing moonbeams and unicorns. And tiptoeing through the tulips, barefoot.

As a result of the above comments, Justin Trudeau has become a public embarrassment to the Federal Liberal Party.

And an embarrassment to the Canadian people.

No spin or public apology can undo the damage that he has done to himself and to his Party in the eyes of the Americans, the Canadians and the world.

The damage will be long lasting.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party have not decided to throw Israel under the bus, yet. For now, the Trudeau Liberals would prefer Israel move from a front seat on the bus. And take a seat more in the middle of the bus.

For the last several weeks I have had extensive discussions with Jewish and non Jewish Liberal supporters of Justin Trudeau.

I have also been directed to several articles, interviews and speeches written and given by several Middle East writers, experts and prominent Federal Liberals which apparently have influenced prominent Federal Liberals including Justin Trudeau, the “about to be crowned” new leader of the Federal Liberal Party.

This approach is a return to the balanced approach of Canada to Middle East politics. In other words, Trudeau et al want to return to the Liberals’ traditional honest broker role in the Mideast. Made famous by the former Liberal Prime Minster Lester B. Pearson, and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

This approach could be summarized as follows. Under Trudeau, the Liberals still believe in a two-state solution. One state for Israel and one state for the Palestinians, in the West Bank and in Gaza.

The Trudeau Liberals believe that Canada should be a friend of Israel. But as a friend of Israel, the Trudeau Liberals believe that Canada is entitled to disagree with Israel’s policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and the continuation of the illegal West Bank settlements.

The Trudeau Liberals still believe in the continued existence of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state. At least for now.

Where Trudeau differs from Harper, is that Trudeau and his fellow Liberals appear to be influenced by Paul Heinbecker, former Canada Ambassador to the United Nations, who is adamant that all the Israeli settlements in the West Bank must be dismantled. He and the Trudeau Liberals believe that these settlements are illegal and contrary to several UN Resolutions.

Accordingly, Trudeau and the Liberals want Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, with few adjustments.
The Harper approach is more flexible and generous to the Israelis with respect to the West Bank settlements that have been created.

Secondly, Trudeau and his Liberals, based on their belief of the illegality of these West Bank settlements, want Israel to stop the expansion of any more settlements, as a pre-condition to Palestine Authority President Abbas re-engaging with Israel in peace talks.

This position is in contrast to the Harper government’s position that peace negotiations should be commenced without any preconditions.

Furthermore, contrary to the Harper approach that the only solution to the current Israeli-Palestinian gridlock, is direct peace negotiations, between the parties themselves, Trudeau and the Liberals believe that the UN should play a more active role and Canada should play a more active role in the United Nations.

For the Trudeau Liberals, Canada has lost considerable international stature because of its one-sided support of Israel. Which they cite as the primary reason for Canada’s failure in 2010 to secure a United Nations seat in the Security Council.

Ironically, this is the same view of Prime Minister Harper.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-condemns-un-hatefest/article1315601/

But from a different perspective.

The Conservatives under Harper, view Canada’s rejection by the majority in the UN General Assembly, due to Canada’s unwavering support of Israel, as a badge of courage.

To the Trudeau Liberals, Canada’s failure in this regard is a badge of international embarrassment.

This latter view has been recently and forcefully articulated by former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who, together with many Liberal Chretienites, still have considerable influence within the Federal Liberal Party.

In other words, contrary to the Harper approach, the Trudeau Liberals are more amenable to Canada being supportive of the Palestinian quest for observer-state status at the United Nations.

Also as part of the balanced approach, Trudeau and the Liberals want to reach out to the current government in Gaza, being the Hamas government.

This is also contrary to the current Harper government with respect to Hamas. The Harper government treats Hamas as a terrorist organization.

The Trudeau Liberals believe that this approach is self-defeating. My sources advise that a new Trudeau government will try to find a diplomatic way, either directly or indirectly through the UN, to reach out to Hamas and to assert itself in the discussion in re-introducing Canada’s balanced and even-handed honest broker role.

The Trudeau Liberals believe that Hamas was democratically elected to represent the Palestinian people in Gaza and no two-state solution can be successfully and effectively accomplished between Israel and the Palestinians without the approval of the Hamas government in Gaza and the support of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

These Trudeau Liberals also cite the Globe and Mail editorial of September 9, 2012, entitled, ” Better To Talk to Your Enemies”. In that editorial the Globe criticized the Harper government for closing down the Canadian embassy in Tehran, Iran. The Globe concluded, ” It is precisely because it (Iran) is a threat to its own people and those in other countries that Canada should continue to talk with Iran and not retreat from its international responsibilities.”

Similarly, the Trudeau Liberals do not believe that Hamas is a threat to its own people and those in other countries, (ie Israel) and regardless, Canada should reach out to Hamas and thus Canada should not retreat from its international responsibilities.

Justin Trudeau believes that Prime Minster Harper is a divisive force domestically, and he believes that Harper has made Canada a divisive force in the Middle East by Canada’s very strong pro Israeli position. http://www.winnipegjewishreview.com/article_detail.cfm?id=499&sec=4

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals see that the Harper Government appears about 80% in favour of Israel and about 20% in favour of the Palestinians. Justin Trudeau wants to move Canada away from being so pro Israeli to being a good friend to Israel and to being a good friend to the Palestinians, more of a 50/50 split. Or perhaps even a 55/45 split in favour of the Palestinians.

Shades of Lester B. Pearson. It looks like Trudeau wants to take Canada back to the future.

There were low expectations for the summit meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but the talks were a major diplomatic and personal success for both leaders.

President Obama used the occasion to reset his relationship with Israel and Bibi. He did four things particularly well.

First, in a speech before Israeli students, Obama made it clear that although he and his government were not supportive of the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the fact that there was some ongoing construction was not an excuse for the Palestinians to do nothing — i.e., to make no effort to restart the peace negotiations with Israel.

Recall that in the past, Obama pressured Bibi to stop all West Bank settlement expansion as a precondition to the Palestinians re-entering peace negotiations. At that time Bibi caved to Obama’s demands and put a moratorium on such activity. But Abbas and his people failed to enter into negotiations forthwith. (The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.) They stalled and by the time they half-heartedly entered into negotiations with Israel, it was clear they were not serious about sitting down and seriously negotiating a substantive peace.

Clearly, Obama, realized he had overplayed his hand on the settlement matter. This time around, he called on the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate without preconditions.

Second, when Obama was last in the Mideast, he implied publicly that the origins for the founding of Israel was just over 50 years ago. In other words, Obama was articulating the Arab position that Israel was founded in 1948 as a result of the world’s international guilt for the extermination of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in World War II.

Many Jews believe that the Jewish people have a historic, religious and almost biblical claim to the lands where Israel was founded — a claim which dates back centuries, not decades.

On this trip, Obama acknowledged this historical and biblical claim (at least in part) by honoring the memory of Theodor Herzl, one of the historical founders of Israel who died in the early 20th century, by laying a symbolic stone on his grave.

Third, Obama made an effort to appear more friendly to Bibi. They even joked aboutBibi’s efforts to convince Obama to establish a “red line” on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The two men are not all of sudden great buddies. But at least there appears to be a greater mutual respect between these two stubborn leaders. And that is a huge achievement.

Lastly, Obama, used the power of his presidency to convince Bibi and Turkish Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make nice and mend what was once a close military and diplomatic relationship between Turkey and Israel. For his part Bibi called the Turkish Prime Minister and publicly apologized for the loss of Turkish lives that occurred when Israeli soldiers boarded one of the Turkish boats bound for Gaza to break through the Israeli naval blockade. Bibi also promised Erdogan, that Israel would pay reparations for the loss of life.

Pre-Erdogan, Turkey had a very close military and diplomatic relationship with Israel.Bibi’s apology may be the beginning of a resetting of this important Israeli/Turkish relationship. It was also important for Israel,Turkey and the U.S. since it will help these allies to focus on the Syrian crisis in the Israeli/Turkish backyard.

In the past, I have not been a fan of Obama’s distant and cool treatment of Israel. This time, Obama brought his “A” game scored the winning “three pointer” with just seconds remaining in the fourth quarter of this diplomatic contest.

In a few days President Barack Obama will be journeying to Israel to meet his counterpart Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu. For once, Barack should abstain from concentrating on his own soaring oratory. Instead, he should quietly watch and learn from Bibi about how to craft a coalition and make government and democracy work.

Yes, I am aware that Bibi is prime minister in a parliamentary democracy. And Obama is president in a federal constitutional republic, where as head of the executive branch, he is independent of the legislature. And I may be guilty of comparing Java oranges to California grapes.

But there are surprising similarities between these two men. And their two countries.

Though their relationship is less than affectionate, these two leaders share similar personality traits. And somewhat similar political situations. Each believes he is the smartest person in the room. Each is intelligent, pragmatic and arrogant — and sometimes inflexible, intransigent and a bit aloof.

And each guy has daddy issues.

Though both just won a national election, they are constrained by their opposition. And their countries are internally divided over conflicting political and social ideologies.

In the last election, Obama won a decisive victory against his Republican opponent Mitt Romney. But Obama has been held back by the Republican-dominated House of Representatives and by Republican opposition in the Senate. To date Obama has faced Congressional gridlock, and his Democratic party and the Republican party have not been able to agree on anything substantial: the budget, taxes, cutting government programs, climate change, significant gun control, immigration reform — nothing.

Accordingly, unless Obama and his people come up with a better plan, this administration will fail to have Congress pass its legislation on gun control, immigration reform and a responsible budget to grow the economy and reduce the deficit.

Bibi’s Likud-Beitenu faction won the largest number of seats of all the Israeli parties. But the election results have brought nothing but tsouris (“misery”) for Bibi. His parliamentary group was in fact reduced to 31 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, the Israeli parliament. If Bibi did not get his act together quickly, his 7 year reign as Israeli leader was going to come to an ignominious end.

Bibi had until Monday, March 16, to form a majority coalition government with some of the other parties that had won seats in the last election. To paraphrase, Samuel Johnson, “the threat of calling another Israeli election and potentially being thrown out of office on his tuchus, certainly concentrated Bibi’s mind.

Did Bibi go on the Israeli equivalent of Letterman or “The View” and whine to the Israeli people like a spoiled, self-entitled trust fund brat? No he did not. Bibi sucked it up. Swallowed his considerable pride. And walked across the street and broke Matzoh with his sworn enemy, his former chief of staff, Yair Lapid, the leader of the centrist Yesh Atid party, which had won 19 seats.

Previously, Yair had jumped into bed with Naftali Bennett, the head of the religious nationalist Jewish Home party. Both Yair and Naftali had come together due to their parties’ opposition to Bibi’s previous policies of exempting ultra-Orthodox Jewish men from mandatory service in the Israeli armed forces and from the work force for the purpose of Torah study.

This was the major defining issue in the last election. Both Yesh Atid and the Jewish Home parties rode the wave to victory demanding an end to these exemptions and the cutback of welfare payments to these ultra-Orthodox Torah students.

In order to build a majority coalition unified against the ultra-Orthodox parties, Bibi then attracted the dovish Tzipi Livni, of Kadima fame, now leading her own centre-left Hatnua party. Throw in a few stragglers from the centrist Kadima party and presto, magic, Bibi secured a majority of 68-70 seats in the Knesset.

To summarize, Bibi’s coalition consists of the centre-left Hatnua party, the centrist Yesh Atid and Kadima parties, Bibi’s own right wing Likud-Beitenu party and the religious nationalist Jewish Home party. Notwithstanding their conflicting ideologies, Bibi has masterfully secured a consensus among these coalition parties. The priorities of his new government will be to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, enact budget reform, expand Israel’s mandatory military conscription and lower the cost of living.

His coalition also includes three party leaders, who will want to replace him as prime minister in the next election; namely, Tzipi Livni, Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett. Talk about your Lincoln Team of Rivals. Oy vey!

Bibi’s outreach to his rivals is the equivalent of President Obama bringing into his Cabinet Republicans Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. Not very likely and practical. But the White House’s fluency in Spanish would definitely skyrocket.

My point to President Obama is that if even hard-ass Bibi could show some flexibility and achieve consensus among warring factions, surely Barack could come down from his lofty lectern and deal mano a mano with his Democratic Congressmen and Senators and Republican counterparts.

Bibi has shown that if a leader gets down in the trenches and seriously negotiates and compromises, even at the expense of his own supporters, responsible government programs and, more specifically, a budget deal among ideological enemies are possible and achievable.

Like Bibi, Barack does not have the luxury of time. It is time to concentrate the mind, Mr. President.

The City of Toronto, like any major city, is facing major problems. There is poverty, unemployment and in certain rough sections of the city, murders and violence. There is serious gridlock. The transit system is over used and in need of repair. The city’s overall infrastructure is decaying and is also in need of massive amounts of funding that the City itself cannot afford.

Notwithstanding all these urban ills, the Toronto Star, recently devoted its front page to the bizarre story of what I have dubbed Tuchusgate.

Here’s what happened: Women’s Post publisher and former Toronto mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson alleged that at an evening public function, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford “grabbed my ass” (as she put it) and uttered inappropriate comments about his wish that Thomson had been in Florida with him because his wife wasn’t there.

In another article, the Star reported that the Mayor denied all these allegations.

The liberal Star is no fan of Mayor Ford’s and seems to take great pleasure in covering — at length and in depth — all of his troubles.

Meanwhile, the Toronto Sun, which is more of a tabloid rag, seemed to get its own great pleasure from issuing a large front page headline reading “Assgate.” The more right-wing Sun included comments from Mark Towhey, Ford’s chief of staff, which made Thomson’s allegations seem less credible.

This is a classic “he said/she said” allegation and defense scenario.

I do not know whom to believe.

But this matter suggests a few things.

Toronto politics is a really dirty business. And the greater city of Toronto is still very polarized between those who support and love Mayor Ford — “Ford Nation” — and those who cannot stand him and will do practically anything to get rid of him before the next election.

Sadly, I tend to think that “politics” played a large role in Thomson’s going public with the allegation about Ford groping her.

If Thomson was groped by Ford, she should have gone to the police and pressed for charges of sexual assault to be laid against the Mayor. And what if Thomson was only interested in an apology? There was still no need for her to go on her Facebook page and tell all her FB friends about these alleged incident, then to be interviewed by various newspapers and talk shows about it. She could have gone quietly to Mayor Ford and sought an apology from him.

Instead, she sought to embarrass Ford publicly. Perhaps to bring him down a notch. Maybe even to boost her public profile and the circulation of her paper. All under the guise of promoting and defending women’s rights.

My Facebook friend Rob Davis dug up an old video of John Turner, the Liberal candidate for prime minister in 1984, who was caught patting women’s bums when greeting them on the campaign trail. Turner’s bum patting was the beginning of the end of his campaign. He came across as a sort of “immature private-school boy” who had somehow had missed out on the women’s movement of the ’70s and ’80s. (Here is the CBC link to the famous Turner bum patting of Iona Campagnolo, the female Liberal President who apparently had to take being groped by Turner, for the Liberal Team.)

As I said, politics can be a dirty and slimy business.

I think Rob Davis’s point in resurrecting the Turner bum-patting was to remind us that such behaviour can also be laid at the backdoor of silly old white Liberal men, as well.

In other words, buttheads, like confirmed and alleged buttpatters, come in both Tory Blue and Liberal Red.