There was a very amusing exchange on the Soloman Show today between Macleans editor Andrew Coyne and the NDP's lone Quebec MP Tomas Mulcair about Coyne's piece in the magazine about corruption in the province. It was quite a heated debate, to put it lightly. At the beginning, Muclair kept interrupting and wouldn't let Coyne talk, then later became sanctimonious and offended when Coyne attempted to interrupt something he was saying. Had the two been together in studio, the anger going back and forth would have been even more entertaining. Honestly I think the two should put on some boxing gloves, get in the ring, and settle it like men...but somehow I doubt that will ever happen...
Mulcair highlighted 2 or 3 quotes that he specifically disagreed with, and he kept repeating those points. He hardly discredited the article, but rather attempted to paint Coyne as prejudice against Catholics. Watch here. It was quite entertaining. The best part was when Coyne said "I know you are in trouble in your riding and need Bloc votes".
Vote here!
ReplyDeleteI'd say he kick Coyne ass like he'd stolen something. Poor Coyne's used to seeing criticisms of his work coming from a mile away and he usually has twelve hours to retort. Not so in this forum. You've got to catch Mulcair on a pretty bad day to beat him on a one-on-one debate.
ReplyDeleteMulclair is an arrogant opportunist.
ReplyDeleteMuclair,,,, typical liberal, socialist,,, just keep yapping,,, talk over everyone and hope your bullshat sticks to something.......
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMuclair,,,, typical liberal, socialist,,, just keep yapping,,, talk over everyone and hope your bullshat sticks to something.......
In the eyes of some people, that's called 'debate' and Mulcair is a master at it. Those of us who know better are merely disgusted that TV hosts let him get away with it...
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/06/strange-words-mr-mulcair/
ReplyDeleteMulcair just got burned.
Mulcair was completely discredited by simply opening his mouth today and speaking. Coyne got a bit pissed at the end but that was only after Mulcair had spent the whole debate interrupting him (and then complaining when Coyne did). Mulcair looked and is pathetic. The sooner he's off the taxpayer dime the better.
ReplyDeleteCoyne will have the last word, when he writes his next op-ed.
ReplyDeleteMulcair is a fool to think he won a round with a national magazine.
Oh my,
link @5:11
Mulcair told a fib...?
And strangely, Harper and the whole house of commons published "its profound sadness at the prejudice displayed and the stereotypes employed by Maclean’s Magazine to denigrate the Quebec nation, its history and its institutions." Quite a stupid resolution approved by HarperCons.
ReplyDeleteAs for part of the article, Martin Patriquin gets his information mostly from Conservative flunkies and catamites... Now, I'm almost certain that Quebec might be the most corrupt province in Canada so the article seems poorly researched at best...
Mulcair is right in pointing out that some "facts" are truly wrong.
Of course Quebec is as corrupt as they come.
ReplyDeleteThey are holding this country hostage with their threat of separation and scoundrels like Mulclair and his confederates in the Bloc think that that isn't a case of corruption. The Liberals are also in on this political shakedown too. That's why you can slowly see Toronto becoming the New Montreal. They may not be quite as corrupt right now, but they're gaining quickly.
It's way past time to delouse this country of those unethical freeloaders.
Well at least "Blame Crash" is not afraid to show his bigotry... Kudos conbot!
ReplyDeleteAnony@ 6:02
ReplyDeleteNo, it wasn’t a “stupid resolution”
His job is to hold this country together and to keep the peace.
The rest of us can, and should call Quebec on it’s scheming and corrupt ways but I’m quite certain that Prime Minister and the Conservatives should not commit political suicide over some article written by a gaggle of Toronto journo-listers who could be very well up to no-good themselves.
Did everybody miss the part where Mulcair said he resigned from the provincial cabinet because of corruption ? Pretty much made McCleans case , I'd say .
ReplyDeleteAnony@ 6:10
ReplyDeleteMy, my, my!
So a bigot is anyone who says anything you don’t want to hear? Even when true?
So, I called Quebec corrupt and I called Toronto corrupt.
So where is the bigotry there Sherlock?
Perhaps your just aping the techniques that you characters pick up from watching those crooks called the Democratic Party of the United States.
The "Very Irish" Thomas Mulcair strikes again!
ReplyDeleteQuebecers agree with Coyne,
ReplyDeletethey polled highest of all the provinces for worrying about corruption in their province,
the ROC did not rate Quebec as corrupt as Quebecers themselves did.
Quebec 'political corruption' in the construction industry popped up again today.
The RCMP is investigating, so if Charest won't give Quebecers a public inquiry into the industry, maybe they will get one this way.
The Bloc has one purpose for the non-seppies vote, bring home the bacon for Quebec.
The Bloc may be squeaky clean, but their pork politics stinks.
"I think the two should ...., get in the ring, and settle it like men...but somehow I doubt that will ever happen..."
ReplyDeleteMe neither
Since candy assed Coyne can scarcely be called a man.
And an NDP Quebecer? - Please, - When have you EVER seen a Quebecer with balls enough to fight?
Heheh! I never enjoyed a "debate" so much. Seriously. These comments are funny too.
ReplyDeletecoyne doesnt have to be a good debater to mop the floor with mulcair. the fact is that quebec is very well known for its corruptive unions that filter their way into the quebec legislature. every federal MP regardless of party stripe has skeletons in their closets because that is the nature of that province and the main reason why no one invests in it.
ReplyDeletebrad
Anonymous on October 6, 2010 6:02 PM said:
ReplyDelete"And strangely, Harper and the whole house of commons published "its profound sadness at the prejudice displayed and the stereotypes employed by Maclean’s Magazine to denigrate the Quebec nation, its history and its institutions." Quite a stupid resolution approved by HarperCons."
Actually, David Akin, who was probably there when the motion was proposed, whereas Anonymous may not have been present, described what happened.
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2010/9/29/4643053.html
" MPs did, in fact, vote on this late Wednesday night [Sept. 29]. Bloc MP Pierre Paquette rose at the end of a series of other votes and, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and many other MPs was leaving, asked for "unanimous consent" of the House to adopt his motion. He read the motion and MPs on all sides of the House (which was about half full at that point) rose to applaud. When the applause died down, independent MP Andre Arthur hollered "Non!". Paquette hollered something back at him -- as did many other MPs -- and Arthur left the chamber. Paquette asked again for "unanimous consent" and, receiving it at that point, the following motion was passed. ...
"That this House, while recognizing the importance of vigorous debate on subjects of public interest, expresses its profound sadness at the prejudice displayed and the stereotypes employed by Maclean's Magazine to denigrate Quebec nation, its history and its institutions."
So, the House was half-empty. It is thus inaccurate to state that there was "unanimous" consent. People who don't watch QP would get the impression all 308 MPs voted for the motion on division -- if they even know what "on division" means in that context -- which was clearly not the case.
And it is equally inaccurate to state "Harper and the whole house of commons published "its profound sadness ... etc"
As far as the resolution itself is concerned, it was not a condemnation of Macleans -- "sadness" does not equal "condemnation" -- it was not silencing or suppression of Macleans' freedom of expression, neither was it censoring nor censuring of the press/media. The MPs who were still present in the House agreed to the motion to express an opinion on an article they found inaccurate & unfounded.
If the media has the right to express its negative opinions about politicians, sometimes destroying reputations in the process, hiding behind their precious freedom of the press shield and its anonymous sources, then some MPs should have the right to express their opinion on what they consider is a prejudice-laced rather than fact-based sensationalist article.
-- Gabby in QC
Canadians think Mulcair won the debate 60-40.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/10/coyne-vs-mulcair-who-won-the-debate.html
Correction anonymous, Evan Soloman's audience thinks Mulcair won 60-40. That does not represent a random sample of "Canadians". E-Solo often gets skewed results in their online polls.
ReplyDeleteIt's still a better sample than the gang that visits your blog site, I think.
ReplyDeleteWell you're here, aren't you... :)
ReplyDelete