Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Actions have consequences, Part 2.

There’s been a lot of blogging and blogpieces done today on Kate’s latest loathsome blogpost at Small Dead Animals and whether it warrants Stephen Taylor removing or suspending her as a Blogging Tory affiliate from his group.

A few thoughts:

First, I liked Jeff’s blogpiece best of all the ones I read, since it shows how Kate and Kate’s Cult are being hypocrites on defending what she wrote, when she and they were decrying similar (but a lot more tame) stuff a couple of years ago (one word of advice to Jeff: I’d advise getting a screenshot of the link that you quoted from there. Incriminating or embarrassing blogposts tend to get modified or disappear completely over there if they cause SDA too much heat).

Secondly, I think more then a few of us would agree with Warren and be not too unhappy if Stephen would keep her on. I’ve had at least 1 blogger privately share the same sentiment – it will be good cannon fodder.

Lastly, I’m less concerned about whether she and her blog gets removed from the Blogging Tories and more interested to see if the National Post will decide she’s too radioactive to accept any more columns from. If not, I can see an organized writing campaign getting started to the NP. We’ll see if even Kate’s stuff is too radioactive for their apparent “anything goes because it’s free speech” stance.


8 comments to Actions have consequences, Part 2.

  • ALW

    Yeah – you’re going to somehow blame what Kate MacMillan says on the Conservative Party?
    Try it. I dare you. I can’t wait to hear you explain how a person who holds no position – official or otherwise, past or present – in the party, and who the party has no control over and does not sanction, can in any way be Stephen Harper’s fault. The Blogging Tories, as you may or may not know, are not officially sanctioned by the CPC, for this very reason.I don’t care for Kate’s comments on various things either but the notion that you are somehow going leverage this for political points during an election is absurd.

    Don’t you get it, Scott? The reason the Liberal Party is in trouble today is precisely because your fellow partisans have recycled the "Tories are all (insert extremist epithet here)s!" line so many times that, aside from being patently false, it has lost all impact. And this Kate thing is just another classic bright idea from this school of thinking.  It’s left your party totally unable to marshall much more defensible, reasonable, non-hysterical arguments (of which there are plenty) to your advantage. You’ve become a shrieking party, instead of a cool and collected one.
     Remember the pre-2006 election Tories? Remember all the shrieking? Remember how it got us nowhere? Remember what happened when we calmed down? Honestly, don’t you see the parallel here?

  • “She’s primarily guilty of making it easy for her political enemies, and she definitely should have known better than that.”Not just her enemies, but also Blogging Tory compatriots to second guess their affiliation. She must have known better, and that’s what makes her post that much more offensive and insidious.

  • MW

    From what I have seen BCF doesn’t have any other rhetorical devices except ad-hom. I suspect that Kate could deliver unto the blogworld a screeching Uber-NeoCon manifesto calling for the  blood sacrifice of all the first-born sons of all the "moonbats" in Canada, and there would be Blazing Cat Fur (among other Kate Kultists) drinking the Kool-Aid, cheering away and giving e-high-fives as an effort to justify it. 

  • Ah, BCF, I wondered how long it would be before some of the extreme right-wingers would get  here to defend their heroine… and you didn’t (or couldn’t) even do that…  instead you did some rather predictable attempts at insults.  Very disappointing.

  • Well Scott this "piece" has even less substance than the usual codswallop you dish out.

  • rabbit

    I read Kate’s posting. When read carefully, it didn’t say anything offensive. You might argue whether she’s got her history right, but there was nothing bigoted or racist about her post. She was mostly making a point about the real enemies of freedom – not very competently, in my opinion, but that’s besides the point.

    It was, however, the type of post that could be misconstrued as offensive if you only read the headline. She’s primarily guilty of making it easy for her political enemies, and she definitely should have known better than that.

  • I should clarify — Kate said that a reporter should NEVER use the term "spear chucker" but she had nothing to say about Stock.

  • My favourite Kate moment was the time I dug up her "spear chuckers" rant and how mad she was that a reporter used that term.  Then when the term came to light thanks to Stockwell Day — she had nothing to say. 

    Oh Kate and her Kult.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.