< RANT >
They're in full spin mode. Those silly, uppity, snooty, arrogant, dogmatic, flamboyant, urbane, sophisticated, nuanced, frequently-well-off-financially, conservative-politicians-bashing Media of Mass Deception (MMD) Elites, eh!
Perhaps they're in a panic over a recent poll that indicates that ideological conservatives comprise the "new center", in a matter of speaking. They may be in a panic over the indication that the Left has shrunken to nothing but a fringe, and that they're members of that fringe.
The sub-headline refers to "extreme conservatives", but doesn't make any case for their existence. Nor does it explain what "extreme" means. John Ibbitson/the Globe and Mail: FAIL! You guys are no better than Janet Napolitano's US DHS and their bizarre, internet-search-results-based "BOLO for 'right-wing extremists'" memo to US law enforcement agencies, which has been withdrawn due to exposure and pressure, though not from the US MMD.
The sub-headline with the "extreme" smear is clearly intended for those many lazy-minded folks who will read headlines and sub-headlines but not bother to read any further to judge for themselves. The propaganda effect is that lazy-minded folks will largely continue to wrongly believe that the Conservative Party "is full of extremists", as they "were told so" by the headlines and sub-headlines in "The News" (a polite way of saying "Media of Mass Deception").
They simply can't accept that those they label "extreme" are actually now "centrist" and are actually representative of Mainstream Canadiana. Just because they believe things that the Arrogant Urban Elite look scornfully upon, doesn't mean they're "extreme". I'd suggest that the real extremists in society are the prominent social revolutionaries on the Hard Left, who actually have gained policy and communications control over the Leftist Opposition parties, including, apparently, the Liberal Party and even the once-seen-as-"extreme conservative" Michael Ignatieff. Oh, and they've also gained "newsroom" control in the MMD, and even seem to be exerting some influence on, in my opinion borne of observation, even FOX News, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter (with those folks, there's something fishy about the way they attempt to dismiss the Obama Eligibility issue, and keen-minded observers will note that they make no case for their dismissal, and actually contradict themselves, effectively invalidating their position).
Granted, there's some who are more conservative than others, but, really, it's silly and unfair to label and smear them as "extreme", just because they see a few things differently than usual.
Would Ibbitson and his employer dare call people who believe in gay "marriage" extreme? No. Hell, even before the propaganda-warfare campaign "legitimizing" the concept in the minds of the lazy-minded masses succeeded in changing perceptions, they still wouldn't have labelled such revolutionaries "extremists". Nor will they call fundamentalist Muslims who don't belong to Al Qaeda "extremsits". Hell, they don't even call the (Omar) Khadr family "extreme", even though they admit to being Al Qaeda themselves! WTF?! Why the DOUBLE STANDARD? How are the A-Q Khadrs not "extreme", but people who steadfastly want the sport-hunting-rifle registry ended are "extreme"? Sheesh!
Oh, and this is priceless... Ibbitson calls them "right-wing nuts" and "social Darwins", just as do the lowly, deranged Progbloggers. Sheesh. Couldn't help himself, could he? And he gets paid to write this drivel... go figure! Feck, in a fair and equitable world, I'd be raking in millions per annum to point the finger at folks like John Ibbitson and his penchant for being, well, the way they choose to be, which, in a nutshell, is "asshole".
The great political irony for the Conservative Party is that, while it must avoid estranging core conservatives at all costs, extreme core conservatives keep the party from winning a majority. They are the social Darwins.
Eight per cent of those polled by Mr. Turcotte and Mr. Gregg strongly agreed with the statements: “I believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” and “people who are poor have no one to blame but themselves.”
Oh, yeah, suuuure. It's "extreme" to believe those things, suuuure. But, really, it's not just a "fringe" who holds such beliefs. We hear Leftists saying those and worse. Remember Liberal PM and hard-leftwingnutcase extremist (oops, have I stooped to Ibbitson's level?) Jean Chretien and his "Some are lucky; some are unlucky. That's life" response to a Town Hall (his very last one, as he never did that sort of thing ever again!) question about people not finding the work he promised there'd be?
And what about all those Leftists who refuse to publicly slam Obama for waging the same "eye for an eye/tooth for tooth" wars as Bush waged, plus the unreported one in Pakistan, to boot? I guess they believe in "eye for an eye/tooth for a tooth", too! And why doesn't the US MMD dare to mercilessly eviscerate Obama like they mercilessly eviscerated Bush for all the "warmongering" and "international terror" and "destruction of civil rights" he did, as Obama does today? So who's "extreme", then?
Ibbitson further blogs...
Most of the time, these right-wing nuts are ignored. But whenever Mr. Harper appears to have enough support to form a majority government, the base starts to get excited and aggressive, and social Darwins “bare their teeth and embrace things that the majority of Canadians don't want to see,” says Mr. Turcotte. This frightens enough centrists to keep the Liberals in the game and the Conservatives confined to minority governments.
You know, I've been observing that the Liberals have been, over the years, taking extreme-leftwingnutcase positions that used to mostly be held and propagated only by the NDP and separatist, Commie-led Bloc Quebecois. Perhaps it's due to the Liberals shift to the Ultra-Far Left that turns off the "Center" and the "Swing Voters" and "Mainstream Canadiana" and keeps them from even winning a minority now?
Hmm. Really, when you examine them both on the surface and deep down, you'll discover, objectively, that it's the Liberals who take more "extreme" positions, and it's the Liberals who not only have LOTS of influential members and supporters who are Hard-Leftwingnutcase extremists, but who also have, within, folks such as anti-Semites and outspokenly hateful, violence-inciting, immoderate Islamic Supremacists as well, as we've already witnessed, if we were watching closely enough (oh, and I blogged about it herein when I found out... remember Mohammed Elmasry, for example?).
I'd like to see Ibbitson and the G&M write about the staggering numbers of extremists in the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Q parties, as well as the Democratic Party in the US. But they won't. Why not? Because they're NOT FAIR. They practice DOUBLE STANDARDS. They're... propagandists and extreme ideologues. Better to look elsewhere for fair and balanced current-events reporting.
Just continue to watch the MMD continue to try to fool us into believing that the real extremists (the Leftists/"Progressives) are representative of Mainstream Canadiana/Americana, whereas anyone representing the non-Left/non-Prog side are, notwithstanding the objective conclusion that they're actually the Mainstream, is necessarily "extreme" (or, as the MMD and Progs like to call them lately, "Teabaggers", as if those "who cares about consequences- there aren't any, 'cause we superior beings are immune" dummies don't see the slurs "Cornholers", "Rimjobbers", "Poledockers" and "Scissorfookers" coming their way, just in the name of fairness and balance!).
Ah! Just thought up a new nickname for the G&M: Grab & Fail! They grab for whatever they think will give them a grip, but they just end up with a root that breaks off and they therefore fall... This is what happens when people try to climb up cliffs without knowing what the hell they're doing. They're no better than Icarus and his waxwings attempting to fly all the way to the sun...
< / RANT >