Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Pierre Poilievre needs to stick a sock in it.

You know, since Pierre “Pitbull” Poilievre became the new attack dog spokesperson for Harper and the Cons., I’ve almost missed Jim Flaherty and Peter Van Loan waxing poetic, because Pierre makes those 2 look reasonable and non-partisan by comparison.  I honestly can’t understand why Harper and the PMO thinks Pierre’s hyper-partisan attacks are going to resonate with the public.

Yesterday, Mr. Poilievre decided (with the PMO’s blessing) that he was going to take aim at the Canadian actors and actresses testifying before the Senate as to why they thought Bill C-10 was a bad bill. Specifically, he took aim at one Sarah Polley, award winning Canadian actress.  I presume he decided to take aim at her because she’s a well known NDP supporter and activist. Rather then debate the points she brought up to the Senate, he dismissed her as being a member of a “special interest group”.

Really now, actors/actresses are members of a special interest group?  This sounds almost Mike Harris-like in its targeting, which isnt surprising considering we have a lot of former members of Mike Harris’s government running around at Parliament Hill in the Cons. caucus.

Heck, even Heritage Minister Jose Verner thinks it’s a bad bill. That was revealed by a Conservative senator who mistakenly left his microphone on during a recess, and it led to some very amusing backtracking on the Senator and Minister’s office.  So, do I think this smear attempt by PP is going to work on Sarah Polley and Canadian actors/actresses? Not a chance.

To read more specifics on what “Pitbull Pierre” exactly said when he did this rant, why he needs a muzzle,  and more on this issue in general, read Danielle’s excellent blogpost.

UPDATE: Ha ha. One of my acquaintances who I’ve known since we were growing up, and who has worked for both the federal and provincial Conservatives,  informs me she actually agrees with me for once – at least with my title – and also with Pierre needing a muzzle, thinking that might be more appropriate.  He’s apparently not the most well-liked person up there. No, really? I can’t IMAGINE why. 🙄

I’ll say to her that she needs to remember Pierre only does this with Harper’s and the PMO’s blessing, and I’m sure they vet what he has to say before he does so… so they’re the ones who need to muzzle him, rather then encourage him. That they don’t, and probably like his line of attacks. speaks volumes.


4 comments to Pierre Poilievre needs to stick a sock in it.

  • I also live in Poilievre’s riding and cannot wait for the next election so we can TRY to boot him out. Mike does have a point that a “broomstick with a tie” could run as a Conservative and win. However, we had one wonderful exception to this rule: David Pratt, an MP anyone could be proud to say was their representative. But alas, Poilievre was insanely voted in the election before last. Locally, he is nothing but an opportunistic and annoying pipsqueak, and nationally, well we all know he is a royal pain!!

    The next election cannot come too soon!!

  • No comment on Poilievre, except to say, if the PMO supposedly spends zillions on polling, they must have something that tells them such hyperpartisanship is either (a) useful or (b) harmless.

    As for whether or not actors and actresses are part of a special interest group, good grief. They are the very DEFINITION of a special interest group, Scott! How so? Well, they are a small group of people who derive disproportionately large benefits from government largesse in a form that the couldn’t otherwise receive voluntarily directly from the public at large. They fight viciously to defend whatever subsidies they receive with no regard to substantive public benefit, and of course frame the debate in outrageously ridiculous terms – hence Ms.Polley’s insistence that failing to subsidize X is even remotely close to “censorship”. How far has the general understanding of what censorship actually is deteriorated if any serious spokesperson is claiming that a *lack of government funding something* is “censorship”!?!

    Look, if she wants to argue this will harm “Canadian culture”, fine. If she wants to argue this is the government imposing rules about what it will and won’t fund, fine. If she wants to argue both of the aforementioned are ill-advised, fine. I would disagree with her on all three points, but at least she’d have an argument that was at least, on the surface, marginally defensible. The moment she starts talking about “censorship” though, my God, she demonstrates she’s fallen totally off the deep end.

    It never fails to amaze me how, on all sides of the political spectrum, far too many people are willing to sign up for obviously feeble arguments, simply because it advances their cause. This is just another classic example of it. For the love of God people, just because you believe in X doesn’t mean you should toss out any ridiculous argument just to support it!

  • KC

    Uggh… every time I think that I just dont have the enthusiasm to get out and campaign next election I think about that little prick and he gives me the incentive.

  • Oh Gawd, Poilievre.

    Scott, you ought to live in his riding. He constantly takes credit for the work of others and is a blowhard and media whore. He’s an embarrassment.

    Not liked? I play hockey with some evengelical Christians and one of them has stated he’d like to punch him out when he sees him in the grocery store. Popular guy eh?

    And he is an old school Refornmer from Calgary who, having failed to get his degree, parachuted into Nepean Carleton. He’s no Harris Tory, he’s even worse – a carpetbagger Reform goon.

    Pity I live in a riding where a broom with a tie on it could win under the Conservative banner. Pierre’s habit of emptying the old folks homes for the advanced polls might have helped him too.

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