Thursday, April 30, 2009

Today's mystery quote - whodunnit?

Because no one will take responsibility for these wild, outlandish and controversial statements,* I offer them up to you, dear readers.
From an analysis piece in the Toronto Star on Ignatieff's decision to move the Liberal Party to the right:


"He is definitely moving the party away from the left and toward the mushy centre," says one Toronto-area Liberal insider who has worked on federal and provincial campaigns. "Some Liberals may not like what he's doing, but the centre – not the left – is where elections are won in this country."











*Actually, very benign statements of reality

4 comments:

skippystalin said...

Was the tail end of the quote "I sue the left. I sued my left hand once. But I don't discriminate. I sue everything. Soon, I will sue winter and make it go away"?

If it was, I think I know the source. It's pretty priceless, too, given his hard-on for anonymity.

Ottawa Watch said...

It just makes me wonder if the Liberals are so wound up on message control that no one cay say anything, no matter how obvious and non-confrontational the words may be.
I also wonder about reporters who use anonymous sources who are so obviously plugging their party. I think anonymous sources are fine for real investigative work, not so great for "Our leader is doing a real swell job."
Despite your problems with certain Liberals, I would place the blame on the Star's reporter for letting himself be the megaphone for the Liberal Party. Its shills are simply doing their job.

skippystalin said...

Actually, I'm not altogether certain that "mushy" is an overly complimentary term.

Furthermore, the shill only gets on background if the shill asks to be on background, no? And without a quote, you really don't have a story.

You're a journalist and I'm not. But have you ever heard of someone asking to go on background to say something nice about their candidate? In my years of studying politics, I haven't seen that very often.

My understanding of politics is that you only go on background when you have an agenda to further that might conflict with that of your boss. You do it to sabotage something that you disagree with.

If I were to guess, I'd say that somebody is deeply unhappy with his job and is looking to maintain a reputation with the base.

And it really has nothing to do with my problems with "certain Liberals", Mark. There's really only one that I have a problem with.

If I'm right, the Star is letting someone who has very publicly stated his problems with anonymity go on background. That to me is a much more profound problem.

But I'm the same guy who has a years-long feature called "Journalists Are Swine", so I'm not really shocked.

Anonymous said...

Same with the Jane Taber's story in the Globe today on the likelihood of an early election. Two MP's as anonymous sources about the caucus' mixed opinion on holding an election. An third anonymouse source about the Liberals loving each other after the convention.

http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20090503/wliberals04.html