but if they've even seen this, I won't be surprised if their response is as dismissive as the one Mr McGinnis already received from "a prominent NDPer." That is, he "should be worried about being sued for laying these allegations." I find Mr McGinnis's response to that curious: "...perhaps we all should be more worried about the chances that what I am saying is true." Notice that even he suggests there's a possibility that what he's claiming is not true. And nowhere can I find anyone else substantiating his claims.
Regarding Brad Lavigne, did you note his professional background? He's been a long-time NDPer and worked for H+K less than 3 years. There is nothing to indicate he is still on their payroll, as Mr McGinnis claims. And even if he were, people often take time off from their real jobs to work on campaigns. If they lose, they have a job to return to. If they win, maybe they go back or maybe they get a job in government. I don't consider that terribly sinister.
You again raise the question of "why they are using some of the same faces who failed so miserably in BC." And again I will point out that, much more recently, they won in Alberta -- against quite difficult odds. I will further repeat that it's not clear from H+K's website that they're actually working for the NDP. In fact, Mr McGinnis quite grossly exaggerates and even misrepresents the relationship between Lavigne and H+K by describing Lavigne as "Vice President, Public & Corporate Affairs Hill+Knowlton Strategist AND Senior Campaign Advisor New Democratic Party of Canada." Notice the AND. As I previously mentioned, the two positions do not appear to be contemporaneous. Yet Mr McGinnis's article gives a very clear suggestion that Lavigne is an H+K operative who has somehow infiltrated the NDP for nefarious purposes. Nowhere in his article does he bother mentioning that Brad Lavigne spent over 6 years in various high-level capacities with the NDP prior to joining H+K. In addition to everything else, such a glaring omission really has to make me question Mr McGinnis's credibility and his intent.
This article contains a lot of innuendo with little evidence, IMO. (And just saying there's evidence, as he does, doesn't make it true.) I'll admit Mr McGinnis certainly has a way with words; but if you parse the thing carefully, there's really not a lot of substance behind the spin.
= new reply since forum marked as read