tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post4317844098332418469..comments2024-02-07T16:22:39.625-05:00Comments on Jeff Jedras: On fundraising and what notUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-42146572896429399602007-08-01T21:58:00.000-04:002007-08-01T21:58:00.000-04:00And Jason H, I think you're probably right on the ...And Jason H, I think you're probably right on the Lib numbers. Were it not for the convention fees, I suspect the figures would be similar to those for the CPC caucus.<BR/><BR/>They certainly were last summer when the media wrote this same story a few times, only then it was about Liberal MPs with no mention of Con caucus donation numbers. I recall Con bloggers had much fun with it.<BR/><BR/>Why can't the media, say, examine all the parties in one story? Beats me, but it would seem to make more sense I'd think.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-63892337676700862452007-08-01T21:53:00.000-04:002007-08-01T21:53:00.000-04:00Depends on the circumstance Jason. Credibility is ...Depends on the circumstance Jason. Credibility is often a problem with anon sources, yes. In the case of "official" or "authorized" leaks the issue isn't as much one of credibility, I'm sure they're very much on the level. Whether we know who it is or not, we know they are clearly speaking for the CPC. The question instead, as you say, is the CPC's penchant for media control, and why the media is willing to go along with it by granting anonymity when it is quite unnecessary.<BR/><BR/><BR/> The issue instead is why the anonymity is necessary. Is the public better served,Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-32485999816406077522007-08-01T18:33:00.000-04:002007-08-01T18:33:00.000-04:00Hey, as long as the Tories are receiving about 3 t...Hey, as long as the Tories are receiving about 3 times as much money, from >3 times as many individual Canadians, than our main opponents [according to the same story you linked to], I'm not gonna complain about a few MPs being slow to take out the chequebooks.<BR/><BR/>That dig aside, I would be mildly interested to know how many MPs from each caucus donate to their respective [and I'm kind of curious to see if Bob Rae is still giving any dough to New Democrats...], or is it just the Tory MPs who are being parsimonious.<BR/><BR/>(Actually, I expect that most if not all Liberal MPs probably did "donate" last year, assuming that delegate fees and/or donations to leadership candidates count as donations.)Jason Hickmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17648786726787793783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-88459395065389072302007-08-01T15:31:00.000-04:002007-08-01T15:31:00.000-04:00If anonymous sources are bad, isn't it because the...If anonymous sources are bad, isn't it because the information lacks credibility? So aren't you undermining the credibility of the arguments you're making against the Conservatives by basing those arguments on the comments of anonymous sources?<BR/><BR/>The issue is not whether or not Stephen Harper has a naughty or nice list. The issue is that the CPC will not speak on the record to the press in situations where they can't control the message.Gauntlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05061438876627317881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-20939529957926850852007-08-01T13:12:00.000-04:002007-08-01T13:12:00.000-04:00Haha,That's a fair enough standard. Tit for tat, ...Haha,<BR/><BR/>That's a fair enough standard. Tit for tat, as it were. Carry on, then.Olafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12434267803807108634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-54555317877411050812007-08-01T12:53:00.000-04:002007-08-01T12:53:00.000-04:00Not until its on the cover of the Economist Olaf.....Not until its on the cover of the Economist Olaf...Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-52341697696857673912007-08-01T12:52:00.000-04:002007-08-01T12:52:00.000-04:00Jeff,I think the "Deceivin' Stephen" nickname, lik...Jeff,<BR/><BR/>I think the "Deceivin' Stephen" nickname, like the "Libranos" and "Fiberals" before it, has reached the point of epic redundancy and overuse, and has long since passed from modestly clever to just plain annoying. <BR/><BR/>That's just my opinion though, because I personally start to get bored of a joke after I hear it 10,000 times. Maybe I don't get <I>just</I> how funny it is.Olafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12434267803807108634noreply@blogger.com