Steve Janke catches the Liberals... uh... red-handed. (Get it? Red-handed? Aw, forget it...)
Thanks to Steve Janke, the suggestions made in an earlier post have been solidly confirmed.
Anyone who visits the No Gun, No Funeral website will quickly notice that the site is red. Really red.
It wasn't at all hard to link the site, it's partisan attacks on Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day and Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant's "No Gun No Funeral" buttons together as a less-than-sophisticated Liberal party campaign ploy.
Janke, however, has produced the straight poop regarding the site, and it takes what was merely speculatory into the realm of the confirmed fact.
According to Janke, the site's registration information links it solidly to two individuals: Glenn Brown and Nikki Holland.
Holland is a member of the "Green Light committee" for the Ontario wing of the federal Liberal party. Brown is the riding association president for St Paul's, which just happens to be Michael Bryant's riding.
The phone number the site is registered to also happens to belong to the St. Paul's Provincial Liberal Association.
According to an unidentified individual at Michael Bryant's campaign office, the website is not part of their campaign. At least not officially. But it is registed to the Bryant campaign's phone number.
So, not only is Michael Bryant using the No Gun, No Funeral website to campaign against his opponent's federal counterparts instead of his actual opponents, but his campaign isn't even admitting to it.
So if the lack of a Liberal party identification on the website isn't dishonest, the refusal of the Liberal party to admit it definitely is.
Showing posts with label Steve Janke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Janke. Show all posts
Friday, August 17, 2007
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Perhaps There Is a Difference Between Right-Wing and Left-Wing Bloggers
Left-wing and right-wing bloggers would like a person to think there is some definitive difference between them: one thing--aside from their partisan or ideological allegiances--that set them apart from one another.
Perhaps there is.
Most of those who insist these differences exist also insist that they are differences in character.
One's character is often best exemplified by how they admit they are wrong, and apologize when necessary.
Those who follow this particular blog on a regular basis are probably now aware of the allegations raised by committed miscreant Red Tory: notedly, that I was posting comments on his blog under an alias (something that I never do as a point of principle). Having proven decisively that I was away from my computer at the time the posts were made, and thus unable to make them, I have demanded an apology from Red Tory.
Red Tory has basically announced that no apology will be forthcoming, despite his demonstrably libellous comments. "I have nothing to apologize for," Red Tory insists. "I said there was a probability — people can arrive at their own conclusions based on the available information."
This is despite a comment made earlier in the same comments section, wherein he wrote, "I knew it right from the get-go a couple of nights back when he was commenting on that thread about polygamy. It was just him all over. He can call himself whatever he wants to and I'll still be able to tell. I have a very good "ear" for these things."
Apparently, not so good as he would like to think, but this is all beside the point.
When Blogging Tory Steve Janke was sued for libel by Liberal David Herle, it became quite the story in the left-wing blogosphere.
(Red Tory, for his part, made quite the tale out of it.)
Janke's article reportedly accused Herle of manipulating operations of the department of Finance to his seeming advantage. There were several options Janke could have used. In the end, Janke issued several apologies.
So perhaps there is a difference between right-wing bloggers and left-wing bloggers after all. Seemingly, the difference is that some will do the right thing when they've libelled another individual--others won't.
Perhaps there is.
Most of those who insist these differences exist also insist that they are differences in character.
One's character is often best exemplified by how they admit they are wrong, and apologize when necessary.
Those who follow this particular blog on a regular basis are probably now aware of the allegations raised by committed miscreant Red Tory: notedly, that I was posting comments on his blog under an alias (something that I never do as a point of principle). Having proven decisively that I was away from my computer at the time the posts were made, and thus unable to make them, I have demanded an apology from Red Tory.
Red Tory has basically announced that no apology will be forthcoming, despite his demonstrably libellous comments. "I have nothing to apologize for," Red Tory insists. "I said there was a probability — people can arrive at their own conclusions based on the available information."
This is despite a comment made earlier in the same comments section, wherein he wrote, "I knew it right from the get-go a couple of nights back when he was commenting on that thread about polygamy. It was just him all over. He can call himself whatever he wants to and I'll still be able to tell. I have a very good "ear" for these things."
Apparently, not so good as he would like to think, but this is all beside the point.
When Blogging Tory Steve Janke was sued for libel by Liberal David Herle, it became quite the story in the left-wing blogosphere.
(Red Tory, for his part, made quite the tale out of it.)
Janke's article reportedly accused Herle of manipulating operations of the department of Finance to his seeming advantage. There were several options Janke could have used. In the end, Janke issued several apologies.
So perhaps there is a difference between right-wing bloggers and left-wing bloggers after all. Seemingly, the difference is that some will do the right thing when they've libelled another individual--others won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)