The endorsement nobody wants

HAHAHAHAHA, yeah... CLC again. From Endless Spin Cycle, the Winnipeg blogger who helped us expose the world-famous MASSIVE POLL a couple of months back, there's news of an endorsement for a couple of local federal CPC candidates -- an endorsement the candidates aren't exactly shouting about:

"Two Conservative candidates running in the federal election in Winnipeg ridings are getting support from a Manitoba anti-abortion group — but neither is talking about it.

The Campaign Life Coalition has endorsed Rod Bruinooge, who is seeking re-election in Winnipeg South, and Trevor Kennerd in Winnipeg South Centre." [...]

"Jared Wesley, a political scientist at the University of Manitoba, said the candidates' silence on the matter is not surprising.

Endorsements from groups with controversial causes are difficult for candidates to deal with, especially those in swing ridings like Winnipeg South and Winnipeg South Centre, he said."

How about that. Looks like Campaign Life Coalition is pretty chummy with Bruinooge, whose brother Allan owns KLRVU Research. You know, the company that did the MASSIVE poll... for Campaign Life Coalition. Just a coincidence, I'm sure! What's up with the silent treatment about the endorsement? Inquiring minds and all that! Because after all...

"Shannon Sampert, who teaches political science at the University of Winnipeg, said silence is not acceptable: "If you are pro-life or pro-choice, either way, you should make your intentions clear."

The Campaign Life Coalition's endorsement could lead some women to worry about the Tories' commitment to women's rights, she said.

"Women increasingly are worried about the Unborn Child Act that they were considering — if [Conservative Leader Stephen Harper] gets in as a majority government, I think women within the community in Winnipeg and in Canada in general will be very afraid of what's going to happen to these rights that we fought so hard for.""

No shit Sherlock. Everyone already knows that Rod Bruinooge is a fetus fetishist, so why is he being so coy about the CLC endorsement?

"Neither Bruinooge or Kennerd returned calls from CBC News."

Hmmm! Makes you wonder...

That's why we call them "lying liars"

In the wake of the KLRVU debacle, it's worth remembering that social conservatives are against more than just abortion, and are equally disingenuous in how they champion their other pet causes.

I mean, who could possibly forget the feverish campaigning they did against equal marriage in the run-up to the last election? In anticipation of a socially-conservative Harper government taking the reins and rolling back the ridiculous right for gay couples to celebrate their love just like anyone else, a number of "Defend Marriage! Think of The Children!"-type websites sprung up overnight. They were all run by the same people, but the noise they were able to generate made them seem like a far greater number than they really were. Like when they freep online polls. Or conduct you-know-what kind of phone POLLS.

The methods the socons used in their anti-equal marriage campaign are uncannily similar to their campaigns against abortion and, most recently, against Morgentaler's Order of Canada -- a lot of noise being generated by not that many people. Buckets wonders if their movement can even properly be called "grassroots", or is it something else?

Fetus Fetishists Ladies' Auxiliary responds to KLRVU poll stomp

Oh dear, our relentless beatdown of the propagandalicious Klrvu poll has Andrea and Brigitte at "ProWomanProLife" beaking off:

As the girls no doubt know (but I'd hardly expect them to admit), the attention garnered by the ludicrous KLRVU poll hasn't been about the poll itself as much as the subterfuge and dishonesty surrounding it. A sham "poll" was done for the express purpose of producing propaganda -- the only irony is that anti-choicers obstinately refuse to see what's right in front of their faces.

As for where we get the idea that being anti-abortion means wanting to control other peoples' sex lives, we need look no further than the anti-contraception propaganda spewed by these same people. Given that contraception is the only thing short of abstinence that prevents unwanted pregnancy, it seems like an odd position for an anti-abortion person to take... unless... unless... bingo! Unless they wanted to control other peoples' sex lives!

Speaking of "other peoples' sex lives", I wonder if Andrea's still with the "Institute for Marriage & Family", who eventually gave up their fight against equal marriage (or so they said), but still publishes articles with alarming titles like "Bringing the State Back Into the Bedrooms of the Nation". (Yeeow! Can you say "Nanny statist"?)

Pissed off that your poll was outed as a sham? Tough. We're onto you people. Take your sanctimonious platitudes and stuff them.

Okay, this is just weird

Answer me this. How did this:
sneak into a website that's all about this:
???

MASSIVE POLL -- the beatdown goes on...

Okay, there's no doubt that the bell has rung on the MASSIVE POLL's credibility, given that after 7 days, in spite of relentless hounding, we were unable to beat any backup data or explanation of the poll's methodology out of its supporters. And no, "Duh... 150,000 households were called..." doesn't make the "methodology" cut. Geez! It's safe to say that the MASSIVE POLL has been completely and utterly, totally and thoroughly discredited, and lies in flaming ruins.

However, there's always someone who wants to run back into the inferno to save the family goldfish, as Lifeshite ably demonstrated with its retaliatory article about the MASSIVE POLL yesterday. But "Pro-abortion bloggers!" and "blatant media bias!" unfortunately don't make up for backup data which is the only thing that might possibly prove the poll's legitimacy. It's not much to ask -- it's the same information that comes with any legitimate poll, massive or not.

But unlike last week's news about the massive poll, which was feverishly blog-bursted, not many conservative bloggers seem interested in picking up yesterday's news about how "blatant media bias" sunk the poll. In fact, some of them are a little torqued about the controversy around the MASSIVE POLL, and they want answers. From FD:

Wow! Phew. Good synopsis of the MASSIVE POLL scandal there, including links to the clips from the Counsell show that buckets posted. Good questions. Now stand back, here's the first response:

To "shorter" that response: "But Mom, THEY (and their activist judges) DID IT FIRST!!!" D'oh!

Gluttons for Punishment

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! What fucking idiots!!!

Oh no! The MASSIVE POLL is getting POLED by the Canadian media! (Thanks to pro-abortion bloggers!)

Why won't the media talk about the Massive Poll? Well let's run it down here...

1. Because there's no data detailing the poll's methodology.

2. Because the question asked in the poll was biased, undermining the poll's credibility from Square One.

3. Because it took DAYS to find any information on KLRVU, the company who conducted the "poll". The information had to be dug up by bloggers, and we still have NO IDEA how Campaign Life even found KLRVU, given that it was for all intents & purposes nonexistent until last Thursday.

4. Because the more we've found out, the less legitimate the "pollster" looks -- it's a phone spam company. Phone spam, no less!

5. Because the one MSM-type person who's actually talked about the MASSIVE POLL, someone who'd normally support the poll if it was legit, thinks it's just as hinky as we do!

6. Because it doesn't matter anyway! Two real polls, done by real polling companies, were taken earlier this month, and they both had the same result: the vast majority of Canadians (2/3) are okay with Dr. M's Order of Canada. The MASSIVE POLL doesn't change that, or even effectively challenge it.

But hey: if the MASSIVE POLL's supporters want to push the issue and force the MSM to have a closer look at it, that absolutely works for me!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Buckets explains how KLRVU explains why you shouldn't believe their poll.

KLRVU/CLC -- What Counsell said

The MASSIVE POLL story has sprouted little legs and is starting to run around AM talk radio. Buckets has posted clips from Thursday night's John Counsell radio show on CFRA 580 in Ottawa, and it's getting ugly. Counsell, who describes himself as a "passionate supporter" of Campaign Life Coalition, questioned not only KLRVU, but the poll itself. Via buckets, the money quotes from Counsell:

"Why even do a poll and publish the stats if the polling company is questionable? It does more damage than good. And [I am] a supporter of campaign Life Coalition!"

and

"Campaign Life Coalition has to do some damage control in telling people who KLRVU is, what other polls they've done in the past. … The stats mean nothing if this is not a legitimate polling company."

Yeeeowtch!!!

The second quote was from a discussion Counsell was having with "Wanda", a representative of CLC. There were a couple of interesting things in that convo -- among them Counsell's assertion that the credibilty of CLC, KLRVU and their poll are "taking a beating" and "getting creamed" on the internet because of their inability to prove the legitimacy of KLRVU, and by proxy, their poll. "The left-wing pro-abortion blogs are carving up Campaign Life because of what looks like a bogus polling company!" says Counsell. (Heh.)

And how did Wanda respond? Like any good little propagandist: "150,000 households were polled..." yada yada yada. Counsell interrupted her to say "The stats mean nothing if it's not a legitimate polling company!" But that didn't stop Wanda from bringing it up again a few seconds later: "150,000 households..." only to be interrupted and brought back to reality again. Listen to the clip -- Wanda is quite instructive in demonstrating the kind of mentality we're dealing with from these people. Just keep repeating the propaganda, over and over and over and over and...

Something else: In the first clip, Counsell tells his audience the question that was asked in the poll, with one subtle difference -- he stumbles over the word "abortionist", and instead says "Doctor Henry Morgentaler". Maybe he recognizes that the wording of the question itself undermines the poll's credibilty?

Anyway, the upshot of it was that "Wanda" was supposed to "make some phone calls" to CLC on Friday morning... and I'm sure she did, just as I'm equally sure we'll never know what transpired during those calls. ("Dive! Dive! Dive!")

I want the CLC's honchos to either prove the poll is legit by providing its backup data, or issue a very public mea culpa and admission that the poll is meaningless. I think we've more than established that the appropriate response to the queston of the poll's credibility isn't "Because KLRVU said so". We're listening, CLC... and remember: the truth shall set you free.

(image from johncounsell.com)