Our psychic readers write

I bet you're wondering: Are talking points issued to folks who write letters to the editor, or people who put comments on blogs? A topical question, given the letter-writing campaign in Helena's office.  But I'm an optimist -- I'll just assume this is a spontaneous coincidence, in response to  a previous post. They come from different IP addresses, so they're not the same person, but they clearly have a psychic connection. Have a look: 

geo writes: 

Susan Susan,in a story like this,does a reporter,only look at misdeeds done one party? Or does a good reporter look for similar misdeeds done by all parties? I'm not a reporter,but my gut feeling is that this goes on beyond a single party. Isn't this what reporters do? Look for the story behind the story? Or is this too much to expect from a reporter?

And then, Michel Boucher writes: 

 Susan,in a story like this,does a reporter,only look at misdeeds done one party? Or does a good reporter look for similar misdeeds done by all parties? Actually, one follows the story. If the issue concerned a liberal staffer, then an effort would be made to elucidate what Liberals have done. In this case, it's conservatives, so that's who's on the hotseat. No sense in casting around without a clue.

Comments

[Marc]

It looks to me like the second poster is responding to the first, without the use of quotation marks.

That said, it's no secret that talking points are distributed to party faithful on all side, and they're encouraged to write letters and call in to talk radio.

[Jim M]

Getting paid or volunteering to parrot the words (and typos) of undisclosed paymasters seems even more deceptive than political staff and family using the omission lie to appear unbiased in praising the hand that feeds them. Apparently, money can rent love.

[Moosecall]

I was thinking that at least where Conservative MP's have their employees writing approving letters for them, and other MP's have their employees stand in for them at radio shows, they CANNOT even compete to their Conservative party master, where the party goes to ANOTHER COUNTRY, i.e. Austrailia, to use the speeches the Conservative party over there uses for whatever fits the situation at the time. Perhaps the PMO sends out pre-written comments to supporters, and asks them to change a word here or there to make it "sort of" sound different. Well, I suppose the Conservatives try to get their message all the same. They don't necessarily succeed, but at least they try.

[Passing By]

The idea that it is a firing offense to orchestrate or engage in non-attributed, third-party endorsements -- not to mention the mounting of complete "astroturf" campaigns -- is simply foolish.

This non-attributed "third-party endorsement" tactic is used by all parties at all levels, and has been a normal part of politics for generations, using whatever communications technology was available.

The real issue here is that Guergis is a fool waiting to be banished. For his part, Ignatieff was foolish to wade into this, though, in his defense, it is entirely possible he did so due to his overall unfamiliarity with what is common in Canadian politics.

What is most amusing from this onlooker's perspective is that, in comment threads everywhere, we have Guergis being slammed by anonymous posters, many of whom are probably paid to post such screeds anonymously as part of their jobs.

Not me, though. You can trust me for the unvarnished, unbiased truth. For sure. Because I say so.

[MikeD]

What Marc said. Throw open quotes in front of "Susan" and close quotes after "parties?" and you have an original comment about an earlier comment. Nothing to see here; move along everybody. Hockey playoffs and the Woods-ergized Masters coming up.

[broostertoo]

I agree with the first comment (Marc). It looks to me as if the 2nd poster is referencing the previous one without quotations or attribution.

[LiveBloggin Junkie]

Michel Boucher did attribute his quote, to the wrong poster, but he did attribute it. Susan just edited it out the attributation.

[Gabby in QC]

Well, I've been accused of working for the Conservatives, of getting my talking points from the PMO, of repeating Conservative talking points, and that most original accusation -- that I've drunk the Conservative kool-aid.

Of course, if anyone dares support the Conservative Party, making facts known with supporting documentation and expressing a POV that doesn't follow the accepted "progressive" dogma, there must be something wrong with that person, right?

That, my "progressive" friends, is precisely what has driven me into the Conservative camp -- the disdain you show for those who hold opinions different from your own; that I am somehow less of a Canadian because I don't support Liberal Party or NDP policies. That was driven home so clearly by Ken Dryden, who shouted in that booming voice of his "I want MY Canada back!" a few years ago.

Yes, me too, I wrote an email, not to a newspaper editor but to Ms. Guergis's office supporting her. I don't know her personally, I have never ever been anywhere near her riding nor do I expect to, but I understand what can cause a human being to become cross and impatient, so I accepted her apology and hoped that others far more perfect than I would do likewise and move on. But no. The outrage goes on. The party which touts its compassion is out to literally DESTROY another human being.

[Mark]

There's a fundamental difference between distributing talking points for the koolaid drinkers, and having a Minister's (or MP's) staffer, who is a government employee of all taxpayers, conceal their identity in making public statements in furtherance of the politician they work for.

[Gabby in QC]

BTW ...

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/01/13444196-qmi.html
Guergis’ staff not the only ones who've sent sneaky letters
By BRYN WEESE, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU

OTTAWA — Helena Guergis is not the only politician to be praised in letters to the editor by her own staff members masquerading as ordinary Canadians.
Indeed, as reported during the 2005 federal election, Liberal Party operatives, mainly from the youth wing, initiated a letter-writing campaign to media outlets across the country praising Paul Martin’s national child-care proposal and bashing Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

One of the many letters was reportedly written by a former speech writer for Jean Chretien and another by a once national director of the Young Liberals. ..."

[Sarann]

What my mother used to call 'weasel lies' abound and don't try to tell me they are used so freely by other parties. Other parties don't seem to have quite as much tolerance for them as conservatives.

[Johnnyk]

They all do it. Some are just clumsy with no finesse.

[Frank Docherty]

Thomas Walkom wrote "What would Iggy do on Afghanistan?" (http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/789178--what-would-iggy-do-on-afghanistan#article), however, we still don't know what Harper did on Afghanistan (http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/canada-wanted-afghan-prisoners-tortured-lawyer) Apparently the dominent psychic connection is between the PMO and the media, niether wants to openly and transparently discuss the Afghan detainee investigation???