Here's Mr. Rae's response that he posted on Facebook.
When Columnists Get it Completely Wrong
Today at 11:50am Uploaded via Facebook Mobile
Letter to the Editor,
Angelo Persichilli's column in the Sunday Star is full of fiction and false statements. At no time did he or anyone from the Star call me to check any of the non-existent "facts" in the article.
The premise of the article - that I "called" a meeting (to be held at the bar of the Chateau Laurier) is completely untrue. After a dinner honouring Senator Grafstein I went to the hotel and saw two colleagues in the bar, who promptly waved me over. We were joined later by another colleague.
The "conversation" described in Mr Persichilli's article is fictional. It never happened in any way described by him, and the views he ascribes to me and others are false.
Michael Ignatieff -the leader of my caucus and party - has my full support. Since my return to active politics in 2006 I have done everything I can to be an effective member of the Liberal team, and I shall continue to do so.
Why the Star would print such an unfounded piece of writing is beyond me, but I have no choice but to respond.
4 comments:
James, I commend Mr. Rae for his committed position. However, when deceitful means were used to bring the HST to the table in BC thru the current Liberal government, I find it questionable that a party would stand behind a bill with such fervor and unity, when the residents of my province are being subjected to and forced to accept a collusion between the Campbell and Harper Governnments against their will! Is there a Liberal that can offer better then Tory spin why this is SO acceptable? Is there gain behind the scenes for the Liberal Party that we are not aware of? Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberals that have voted in favor of this tax, have sold the residents of BC out.
See my previous posts. I'm that Liberal.
Thanks for posting this response letter from Bob. I read that article from Persichilli this morning and thought it was too good to be true. But I think the point is about convention wisdom. These days, conventional wisdom is that the Liberals are in disarray. If you write something with enough credibility to make it sound as though the Liberal's internal problems are such a huge problem, most people end up believing it.
I find it very odd that both Rae and Pearson focus on debunking the claim that this was a "planned" meeting "called" by Mr. Rae. It's quite clear that Persichilli makes no such accusation in his report. Persichilli writes only that "some MPs" were "invited by Rae for a drink" and that while out for said drink "the façade of unity vanished, the true face of today's Liberal party materialized".
Why are Rae and Pearson making the centre piece of their case against Persichilli's article debunking a claim that Persichilli doesn't make?
Furthermore, how can Bob Rae claim that the conversation "never happened in any way described", when Pearson's own denial quite clearly acknowledges that--even if his sentiments were miscontured--he did, in fact, say things quite similar to those attributed to him in the article?
Post a Comment