Thursday, June 04, 2009

Bully Boys Of The Opposition!

I don't think the opposition leaders thought about how they would look to voters by attacking a female MP. They did it once before with Rona when she was the environment Minister, and got away with it. It didn't work this time. They call PM Harper a bully, well watch this display of male party leaders attacking a female Minister.



Today's question period was disgusting in the outright attacks against Lisa Raitt. Being a typical Conservative woman, she stood up to attack after attack and she put NDP slime ball Mulclair in his place for calling public servants underlings and subservient. Kudos Lisa, you hung in there against all those male opposition leaders, and put them in their place. Garth must be grinding his teeth to little points knowing she will be re-elected in a landslide after this Minister bashing session.

Iggy, Duceppe, and especially Mulclair overstepped the bounds by their vicious attacks on a female MP. Funny how Ruby was in attendance and clapped for everything Iggy said, shouldn't she have been booted from the Liberal party? Not one Conservative MP has attacked Ruby, but female Conservatives are fair game. Also female bloggers, go to my previous post and see how male lefties attacked me and my Conservative posters. It was a virtual swarming.

Lefties target Conservative females, remember Sarah Palin? The problem for lefties is that Conservative women are not brainless, and lefty males just end up looking like bullies.

Bully Boys of the Opposition, shame on you!

Oh, and you progressives who are going to yap at me because I am using my sex as a weapon, well, you started it with your "my body my choice" nonsense. So, as a female I am totally disgusted by the male opposition leaders attack on a female. I suspect that those opposition leaders are insecure little men who can't handle a real woman.

Bully Boys, attack women because they think that will make them powerful and win votes.

31 comments:

Southern Quebec said...

“The rules say that she is responsible, not some underling,” Mulcair told the House, pointing to the minister. "How come a year ago, the minister had to resign and today they're allowed to blame an underling, a subservient person, for all the responsibility of the minister?"

Lisa Raitt should resign plain and simple. Bernier did, so should she. As a "tough Conservative woman" she would want the same treatment as Bernier. This has nothing to do with being female. It is all about losing a secret document. (Nice try though...)

East of Eden said...

Bernier was the one who left the documents at his girlfriend's place. Realistically, a manager cannot be aware of every single move made by an assistant. To do so would make him or her a micro-manager who will not allow his or her staff to grow and be empowered. Clearly, the aide violated procedure and then compounded it by accidentally leaving the material behind.

Further, why did CTV not notify the Minister's office and ask that it be retrieved. And, why would anybody at CTV actually read the documents?

Sorry, but Raitt did not commit the action, herself, and was most likely not aware that a trusted aide made such an error.

Bernier was a fool. And, again, why did Couillard not tell him or return the docs to him? Yes, Bernier did something very stupid but it appears that Couillard abdicated her responsibility as well.

This sort of thing happens in all governments and with all parties.

BBS said...

Bernier personally left the documents in question at his girlfriends place. It wasn't as staffer who forgot about them or misplace them, it was Bernier himself. In Raitt's case, she was at a TV studio, with her staff and the briefing book was left behind. In this case it is her staff's job to make sure the documents are secure once the minister is done with them. No double standard, just two very different situations.

Southern Quebec said...

Sorry. You don't give documents labeled "secret" to a 26-yr old "assistant" that probably doesn't even have clearance. This has nothing to do with CTV and everything to do with Raitt.

Southern Quebec said...

"So, as a female I am totally disgusted by the male opposition leaders attack on a female."

I don't quite understand what you mean. Male members of Parliament shouldn't be allowed to question females?

East of Eden said...

SQ - in order to work in a Minister's office, a secret clearance is required.

As to having everything to do with Raitt - no. Absolutely not. As with any other senior executive, a competent staff is required. There is no way a Minister should occupy his or herself with administrative details.

No matter how you try to spin this, SQ, you are off-base and incorrect. Using your logic, Raitt should have resigned and the aide remain so that she could make other mistakes. Yeah, that makes sense.

mystereeoso said...

Well the documents, to my understanding were Raitt's own speaking notes - so why or how they would have been left behind by anyone else is pretty mysterious - even for mystereeoso!

Raitt's response to Mulcair, her complaint about the honourable member's tone "....indicating that maybe...perhaps...only a woman could be subservient..." hardly comes off as a smack down. How is she advancing women in politics by sacking her young female minion? But hey, Raitt was left to fend for herself by her own party yesterday, the noble conservative party.

Re: "So, as a female I am totally disgusted by the male opposition leaders attack on a female." I refer you to your own hypcracy:


http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2009/03/question-period-minna-mouse.html:

"Minna was accused of yelling from the beginning of question period to the end, yet she wants the Minister to apologize? Who comes to her rescue? Hedy Fry, a DOCTOR who is so wacky she thinks Conservatives are burning crosses "as we speak"! Maybe she should give Minna some of those pills she is taking!"

http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2009/03/oh-i-forgotits-international-womens-day.html:

"What bothers me are the feminists who keep on insisting that we are victims, we are weak and dependent on men for our fulfillment, BS! Enter our favorite victim...."

http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2009/02/question-period-liberals-hide.html:

"Conservative women are strong, and refuse to be victims. Liberal females are all about being victims, especially with this "pay equity" garbage. We already have pay equity, it's the law, so what are these feminists belly aching about? It seems that secretaries do not get paid as much as engineers, so Liberals are demanding that they get equal pay for unequal work.My advice to women, get educated. Stop playing the victim. "


http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2009/02/question-period-arrogant-liberal-mp.html:

"What disgusts me is the feminists in opposition yapping about women and their rights and then gleefully stomping on a female Conservative Minister. It seems that feminists only like feminist women, and can't stand independent women who are confident and don't need the herd mentality to make themselves feel more confident. Go to the Parliament of Canada and look at the pictures of the female MP's. Anything strike you?? "

http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2009/02/question-period-liberals-provide.html:

"So, what's with the Liberal female MP's are they are suffering PMS at the same time, or are they just that dippy?"

http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-principle-candidates.html:

"In the seventies, the feminists made a big push to get females into management positions, I had no problem with that, but what happened was that companies promoted females just to show they were pro-female. They promoted women who were not qualified and that's when the Peter Principle kicked in. They were promoted because they were female, not because they were competent. They set the feminist movement back because they were so bad at what they did, that no company wanted to take a chance of promoting another incompetent female for years."

http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2008/11/finally-right-minister-at-heritage.html:

"I found that I had to come back to the exchange between Minister James Moore and Bloq MP Lavallee, because so far the feminists have been running the Heritage show, and having a female Minister hasn't stopped them from making ridiculous allegations. Finally, I think they have met their match! These feminists are arrogant women who think that just because they are female they are the only ones who have the right to decide anything about "arts and culture".

East of Eden said...

Stereo - Ministers do not carry their material with them - that is why they have aides. It is the aides who organize material etc. The same thing holds true in the private sector - CEOs and other big shots have assistants who do their organizing etc. for them.

mystereeoso said...

They don't carry their own speaking notes - they don't touch them - is that what you're saying? Do they look at them?

mystereeoso said...

I liked Iggy's response:

"This presumably is the same 26-year-old staffer who is responsible for spending $1.7 billion since 2006....It is presumably the same staffer who is responsible for the isotope shortage. It is presumably this 26-year-old who is responsible for the whole darn department. How are we supposed to believe such a fiction?"

mystereeoso said...

And what did Mulcair point out again - something about the conservative party guidebook for Ministers where it says that PMSH "holds ministers . . . personally accountable for the security of their staff and offices as well as . . . cabinet confidences and other sensitive information in their custody"?

How does firing the staffer hold the Minister personally accountable?

mystereeoso said...

Did you know that 90% of the isotopes produced at Chalk River go to Hospitals in the USA?

I wonder what the return is? I mean the Canadian taxpayer has shelled out 1.7 billion over the last three years and it's been leaking crap into the Ottawa River the whole time? Was the government not making enough from the sale of isotopes to fix the reactor? Bad business!

Why was Harpo freaking out last time there was a big leak - about how sick Canadians can't get their isotopes - when we only get 10% of the isotopes anyway?

Neo Conservative said...

*
You're right Hunter. It was incorrect for the male opposition MP's to expect a female to be able to do the job of a man.

*

Eskimo said...

Using the 'logic' of the resident trolls, if a child slips on the floor in school, it's not the fault of the janitor, but the superintendant of schools must be fired.

Millions of taxpayer dollars was stolen by the Lieberal Party under the watch of Johnny Cretin. If the so-called progressives belive the buck should stop with the top dog, where were thier calls for the Prime Minister's head over Adscam?

crickets.....

What's even more perplexing is the denial on the left that no double standard exists for the (free ride) Lieberals.

more crickets.....

mystereeoso said...

Neo Conservative:

Gary Lunn was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better and a really fine example of what a manly man can do in Canada's parliament. It was especially great the way he fired that Linda Keen.

mystereeoso said...

Eskimo, please ascribe the logic, your "logic of the trolls" to its rightful owner. LOL! It's the protocol in the Conservative guidebook for its Ministers!

mystereeoso said...

Haha. If you can't deflect the incompetence and shrug it off on the secretary, heck try to blame it on adscam! Yeah baby!

mystereeoso said...

Wahwah I'm rich and therefore I'm right.

maryT said...

When did PMSH first take office as PM. When did the breakdown at Chalk River occur. It was shortly after his election. How much money did the liberals pour into that facility over the years.
With all the protectionism in the USA now, will they be allowed to buy the product.
Notice how the trolls are upset that we bring up ADSCAM again, after all it was 10 years ago. Well Brian/KHS was over 20 yrs ago and no government money was involved but it is still big news.
Who will that guilty liberal name, are there liberals in Quebec sweating bullets. Iggy must be upset he might lose support there.

maryT said...

How many of you paid attention to the video of Fyfe returning the documents from an unsecure grocery bag. How many of you paid attention to the documents he showed on TV. And how many noticed the date-2007, and the word DRAFT on them. So who prepared those documents.

mystereeoso said...

"When did PMSH first take office as PM."



Far too long ago.

liberal supporter said...

Yesterday, I commented elsewhere (I won't provide a link), and I see from this post that I apparently predicted the future. I could be a meteorologist at this rate!


Blogger liberal supporter said...

Are we hearing that it is sexist to attack Lisa yet? After all, Steve seems to be leading the way, given the differing treatment of Bernier and Raitt.

7:00 PM

East of Eden said...

What I'd like to know is WHY this staffer was carrying the documents to the studio. Were they germaine to the interview? Normally, removing secret documents is not permitted and to take them to a media studio is definitely not the norm. We do not know the whole story, do we? One could even speculate that Raitt is protecting the former staffer. Nothing has been said about why the staffer brought them.

Speaking of staffers - has the Nannygate issue died?

East of Eden said...

What I'd like to know is WHY this staffer was carrying the documents to the studio. Were they germaine to the interview? Normally, removing secret documents is not permitted and to take them to a media studio is definitely not the norm. We do not know the whole story, do we? One could even speculate that Raitt is protecting the former staffer. Nothing has been said about why the staffer brought them.

Speaking of staffers - has the Nannygate issue died?

mystereeoso said...

"Were they germaine to the interview?"

Um they were Raitt's speaking notes! Is that germane?

mystereeoso said...

Which is it East?


"Ministers do not carry their material with them - that is why they have aides. It is the aides who organize material etc. The same thing holds true in the private sector - CEOs and other big shots have assistants who do their organizing etc. for them."

or

"What I'd like to know is WHY this staffer was carrying the documents to the studio. Were they germaine to the interview? Normally, removing secret documents is not permitted and to take them to a media studio is definitely not the norm. We do not know the whole story, do we? One could even speculate that Raitt is protecting the former staffer. Nothing has been said about why the staffer brought them."


??????

mystereeoso said...

Hey Liberal Supporter, quite a prediction you made! Nobody wants to touch it with a ten foot poll around here anymore though! Well maybe someone will come up with a hundred footer!

mystereeoso said...

Hey East do you really have a blog called forever green?

East of Eden said...

Stereo - no, there is a blog called forevergreen, but that wasn't me. My current page has a completely different name. But, I did have one called forevergreen2000 - you just have to click on my name and you'll see it. We're a long way from the year 2000 when I first started blogging.

East of Eden said...

Which is it East?

Both. Speaking points would not be secret, would they, if she was publicly speaking them.

The big hoopla is about secret documents - I would ask why secret documents were taken to the studio.

Speaking points - yes, of course. Almost all public speakers use speaking points. Speaking points are used in QP. None of that is secret, is it?

Ministers are accompanied by aides who carry the briefcases, etc. with the material. The aide gives material to the Minister when it is needed. So, the speaking points would have been carried by the aide and handed to the Minister when she was ready to speak the words contained on the sheets. That would not be secret information.

So, once again, I have to ask what the other documents were which were secret. Or, were the docs actually secret? Is this a tempest in a teapot?

Do we know the real story? The media has gone nuts over it and certainly Mulcair and Ignatieff have gone nuts over it.

As for the question of being germaine - of course speaking points would be germaine. But, the allegedly secret docs - were they germaine?

To reiterate - speaking points would not be secret since they are spoken aloud publicly. The media is squawking about secret material - why was that material brought to the interview?

Southern Quebec said...

Well...the Conservatives were all about accountability!