# The Cabinet of Stephen Harper, Boy Prime Minister...



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Some of them, anyway...

Stockwell Day as Public Safety Minister... in charge of the RCMP and CSIS.

Monte Solberg is the Citizenship and Immigration Minister.

Peter MacKay is our new Minister of Foreign Affairs.

David ("Why Was I Ever In The Liberals, Anyway? Oh, Yeah, That Cabinet Posting") Emerson will be in charge of International Trade and the "Vancouver Olympics." I wonder if the former head of Canfor will have anything to say to the U.S. about the softwood-lumber "agreement"?

Oh, this is going to be fun, I think... and probably not for the Cons...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just watching the swearing in as I type this. 

I see that the MP that I voted for in the past few elections...Gary Lunn...will now become a cabinet minister. :clap: 

I also see that there are no cabinet ministers OR mp's from the city of Toronto (at least not at this point).

That means that, as of today, Salt Spring Island now has a powerful representative in Parliament....and Toronto has none at all.

My, my....how times have changed.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Just watching the swearing in as I type this.
> 
> I see that the MP that I voted for in the past few elections...Gary Lunn...will now become a cabinet minister. :clap:
> 
> ...


And yet how they stay the same, especially how a "reformer" like Harper uses his "new broom" to pursue "politics as usual." Helluva cleanup, there.

"I, David Emerson.... solemly swear.... so help me God."

Yup. God help us all.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Let's all start throwing stones at the new kid as he walks into school on day one. Based on the fact that the old kid he replaced was such an lying a**hole. That shows lot's of maturity.:heybaby:

Stephen Harper has an interesting road to tread in the next little while. Let's all pray for a snap election so he can get the majority that he needs to actually govern for the next half decade. I hope that what's left of the leaderless and devastated Liberal party causes that snap election, too. Preferably in the next few months.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Let's all start throwing stones at the new kid as he walks into school on day one.


When the Boy PM plays Politics As Usual in giving turncoat David Emerson a cabinet post -- after running on the premise of "cleaning up Ottawa" -- that's just flat-out hypocrisy and brinksmanship. On Day One. The rocks are earned on this one.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Prentice is where he should be (his area of expertise).

Ambrose in Environment...not sure about that one, but pressure can mature people.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Anybody have insight on Lunn? For my work, he's the one that is most relevant.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The Cons where all up in arms about Stronach crossing the floor - for weeks I heard how unethical is was blah blah blah...
Yet the Cons see nothing wrong with bribing David Emerson with a cabinet position for crossing the floor. So much for *their* principles....


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> The Cons where all up in arms about Stronach crossing the floor - for weeks I heard how unethical is was blah blah blah...
> Yet the Cons see nothing wrong with bribing David Emerson with a cabinet position for crossing the floor. So much for *their* principles....


I agree, but I believe the comments that were being thrown around were much more vulgar with Belinda for some reason. But yes... the hypocrosy is deafening. :lmao:


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I agree, but I believe the comments that were being thrown around were much more vulgar with Belinda for some reason. But yes... the hypocrosy is deafening. :lmao:


To be fair, news of this only came to the surface in the past 90 minutes, so many people don't know yet. Also, our friend MacNutt has never pretended to be non-partisan. You see, when the Right plays dirty it's "necessary"; when the Left plays dirty it's "treasonous." Isn't that right, Gerry?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> When the Boy PM plays Politics As Usual in giving turncoat David Emerson a cabinet post -- after running on the premise of "cleaning up Ottawa" -- that's just flat-out hypocrisy and brinksmanship. On Day One. The rocks are earned on this one.


I don't recall anything about MPs crossing the floor in the proposed accountability act, IIRC it concentrates on things like banning Corporate and Union contributions, a cooling off period before civil servants can become lobbyists, etc. So this is not really what they campaigned against.

In all fairness though, a number of Conservative MPs *did* say that a byelection should have been held when BS crossed the floor, so these folks have some explaining to do.

Much as I don't care for turncoat MPs, this might be a good thing in this case, as it moves the NDP closer to holding the balance of power in the minority. I think a parliment in which all three opposition parties held the balance of power would be interesting, and *might* just work for a while before we head to the polls again. If the Liberals lose one more seat, or if either the Conservatives or NDP pick up one more, this is just what might happen.

Edit: This also gives Vancouver some cabinet representation, which leaves only two major urban areas "locked out" of the government. Probably not a bad thing either.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> ... Let's all pray for a snap election so he can get the majority that he needs to actually govern for the next half decade.


Let's all pray instead for good governance... which is off to a really bad, hypocritical start with David Emerson's "party-change" operation. At least he doesn't have to move his office...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> Let's all pray instead for good governance... which is off to a really bad, hypocritical start with David Emerson's "party-change" operation. At least he doesn't have to move his office...


Let's hear what he and the Conservatives have to say before passing judgement.

What if Emerson called Martin to get his blessing first? We don't know the circumstances.

Either way, Emerson is a great person to have in that position. Most people who know Emerson will tell you that he does not play 'traditional' politics and he is just interested in good policy and doing a good job. I even said on election night that I would have voted for him had he been in my riding, although he was a Liberal at that point.

I don't think his situation is the same as Belinda. She is a lightweight, switched on the eve of a very important vote and formerly ran for leadership of the Conservative Party.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Let's hear what he and the Conservatives have to say before passing judgement.


Why should I care how the Cons spin this? It's hypocrisy, plain and simple. So much for accountability and credibility; it's out the window. The people of Vancouver-Kingsway were duped, with no chance for a recall. 



Vandave said:


> What if Emerson called Martin to get his blessing first? We don't know the circumstances.


Maybe Emerson could have let his constituents know about this, too? Or would that have been too "open" and "democratic"?



Vandave said:


> Either way, Emerson is a great person to have in that position. Most people who know Emerson will tell you that he does not play 'traditional' politics and he is just interested in good policy and doing a good job.


Is this something you read somewhere and half-remember? Anyway, this impression is obviously not accurate, as Emerson and the Cons showed us today that they very much play "traditional" politics.



Vandave said:


> I don't think his situation is the same as Belinda. She is a lightweight, switched on the eve of a very important vote and formerly ran for leadership of the Conservative Party.


It's the same old garbage politics that you and many other people on this board howled at the Liberals for doing. The only thing that's different here is that someone defected to "your" team, so you're willing to give them more latitude. Everything else is a mealy-mouthed excuse to back that up.

It's pathetic...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> It's pathetic...


Yeah, it is. When Belinda switched, she even had to wait for her cabinet position. So, congrats, conservatives. You aren't shut out of Vancouver any more. You only had to screw the voters over to do it. Try that in Toronto. I dare ya.

edit - here's hoping the unelected guy loses in his new riding


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

*Today's Salt Spring Island Secret Word:*

0110111101110000011100000111001001101111011000100111001001101001011011110111010101110011


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm waiting to see the Liberal response. When Belinda left the Conservatives they were given a golden opportunity to rise to the occasion, but they chose to act like bitter children and lashed out in a mean-spirited manner. Belinda had some insulting lines directed at Harper, which really gave Harper an opportunity to respond with more maturity. He didn't. The party also developed a hate-on for Belinda and directly targeted her riding with righteous anger. They showed, regardless of Belinda's credibility, that they valued party loyalty over personal conscience. The club over the individual. Those feelings should have been kept behind closed doors in the same way that adults don't voice every bitter thought that pops into their head (well, most adults  ).

The Liberals now have an opportunity to show that they're more dignified. We'll see step one soon and step two next election.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Let's hear what he and the Conservatives have to say before passing judgement..


Already did - just shows the hypocrisy of the Cons. They bitched when Belinda did it even if it was under different circumstances. 
Two weeks after this guy is elected as a Liberal, he takes a bribe to become in the cabinet. Harper shows no integrity. 

Now, Michael Fortier is another interesting choice - lawyer from Montreal, not elected still appointed. How did he get this plum job? He was president of the PCs and co-chair to SH campaign. So, what's this about ethics, accountability?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

First I had to find a binary translator, and then I had to go to dictionary.com to find out what that word meant. Man, posting around here requires dedication.  Good one, though, Doug. I've even learned my thing for the day now!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now, Michael Fortier is another interesting choice - lawyer from Montreal, not elected still appointed. How did he get this plum job? He was president of the PCs and co-chair to SH campaign. So, what's this about ethics, accountability?


I don't know if he was qualified for what he got, but I'd actually like to see unelected experts get cabinet postings. Right now you get to head up a ministry responsible for billions of dollars and affecting millions of lives because about 25,000 people like you and you're dedicated to the party -- not a recipe for success. Hopefully the Conservatives will at least fix the DM hiring process.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

No really big surprise to me:

http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleN...g_060119/20060119?s_name=election2006&no_ads=



RevMatt said:


> First I had to find a binary translator, and then I had to go to dictionary.com to find out what that word meant. Man, posting around here requires dedication.  Good one, though, Doug. I've even learned my thing for the day now!


*LOL** Me too...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Let's hear what he and the Conservatives have to say before passing judgement.
> 
> I don't think his situation is the same as Belinda. She is a lightweight, switched on the eve of a very important vote and formerly ran for leadership of the Conservative Party.





Vandave said:


> that was pretty weak on her part.
> 
> If she wanted to vote her conscience and if she didn’t agree with Harper’s views, she should have sat as an independent. But, to take over the portfolio of HRDC just smacks of political opportunism at its worst. At the very least, she should have accepted nothing from Martin.


http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=226882&postcount=32


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

The Doug said:


> *Today's Salt Spring Island Secret Word:*
> 
> 0110111101110000011100000111001001101111011000100111001001101001011011110111010101110011


I agree with RevMatt... good call, TheDoug.

"Canadians voted for change," our Prime Minister just said. Too bad they're giving us more of the same crapola politics. It's a shame that for some people, like our friend and neighbour from the Gulf Islands, it seems to be ideology uber alles.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> I see that the MP that I voted for in the past few elections...Gary Lunn...will now become a cabinet minister. :clap:
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


Plus ca change ...

Woo-freakin'-hoo. Our MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands Gary Lunn is on Cabinet. He doesn't represent Salt Spring or the Gulf Islands since he's done his best to ignore these places. I'm not sure about this past election, but last time around Lunn's margin in Gulf Islands polls was that he came in 3rd place, behind both the NDP and the Greens. This time his winning margin overall was much smaller, so likely his Gulf Islands votes reflected this.

He's the MP from conservative Saanich, where he secured his win, not the lefty Gulf Islands, since he won't be representing the vast majority of political views here. This is a divided riding with a very right-wing area attached to one of the most left areas in the country. Gerry, you're living on the wrong side of that divide. 

I hear that the suburban sprawl in Saanich is lovely this time of year. 

I'm getting ready to send him my first letter, to remind him that his 30-odd percent of the votes in this riding is only a minority.

As for Emerson, this guy was elected in a Vancouver riding where the Cons are perpetual also-rans. The battle in that riding is between Liberals and an equally strong NDP. I bet he'd lose in a by-election if Harper had the nerve to call one and I predict he will lose in the next election if he runs as a Con.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I don't know if he was qualified for what he got, but I'd actually like to see unelected experts get cabinet postings.


So would I, but this is/was a political patronage posting....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So would I, but this is/was a political patronage posting....


I'm shocked!  Harper got elected because he learned how to play politics and tell people what they wanted to hear. Now his actions are political too. :lmao: Shock and awe!


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Let's hear what he and the Conservatives have to say before passing judgement.


The Boy Prime Minister has spoken.

David Emerson? Hard worker, warm family man, fine MP. Called him up with a job offer. He said yes. No problem.

"We did our best."

Meanwhile, Emerson's constituents are roasting him alive on CKNW news-talk radio. Same old shameful politics, they say. If we wanted a Con, they're saying, we would have voted for one. No wonder we're cynical about politics, they're saying. The Cons are no different from the Libs, they're saying.

P.S. Harper won't ask Emerson to stand down and run again in a byelection. As I said, the people of Vancouver-Kingsway got screwed -- plain and simple. So much for the new regime being "accountable" and "credible." It's the same old "lying a**holes," as our friend MacNutt said before... except they're wearing Con Blue this time.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I'm shocked!  Harper got elected because he learned how to play politics and tell people what they wanted to hear. Now his actions are political too. :lmao: Shock and awe!


And you wonder why some a cynic? 
The Cons made a big deal about this kind of behaviour - their neo-cons supporters made a bid deal about this - Harper's actions are in direct opposition to what he preaches. This is arrogance and hypocrisy on their part.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=226882&postcount=32


Where is the hypocrisy in my statements above? It’s not there at all.

First off, I haven’t passed judgment yet, hence why I said I wanted to hear from the Conservatives and Emerson first.

Secondly, Belinda said she switched because she didn’t agree with Harper’s views. Why wait to the eve of an important vote and accept a cabinet position to make this point? She had months and months to take that stance.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> I'm shocked!  Harper got elected because he learned how to play politics and tell people what they wanted to hear. Now his actions are political too. :lmao: Shock and awe!


You might call it an eye for an eye!


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Where is the hypocrisy in my statements above? It’s not there at all.
> 
> First off, I haven’t passed judgment yet, hence why I said I wanted to hear from the Conservatives and Emerson first.
> 
> Secondly, Belinda said she switched because she didn’t agree with Harper’s views. Why wait to the eve of an important vote and accept a cabinet position to make this point? She had months and months to take that stance.



Here's where the hypocrisy bleeds in. Your statement:

"...to take over the portfolio of HRDC just smacks of political opportunism at its worst. At the very least, she should have accepted nothing from Martin."

But it's OK for Emerson to not only stay as a Con, but as a cabinet minister as well? You had no problem howling at Stronach over this, yet you seem to think Emerson should be given a free pass. That's hypocrisy, friend.

EDIT: Also, as I pointed earlier, Harper himself said this morning that he would not ask Emerson to either sit as an Independent, or have him run in a byelection.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Where is the hypocrisy in my statements above? It’s not there at all.
> 
> First off, I haven’t passed judgment yet, hence why I said I wanted to hear from the Conservatives and Emerson first.


VanNutt, your principles seem to be so flexible towards the right.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And you wonder why some a cynic?


No I don't. I wonder why people believe things like 'axe the tax' and 'trust us, don't trust them' messages. :lmao:


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Mac Yak said:


> P.S. Harper won't ask Emerson to stand down and run again in a byelection. As I said, *the people of Vancouver-Kingsway got screwed -- plain and simple.* So much for the new regime being "accountable" and "credible." It's the same old "lying a**holes," as our friend MacNutt said before... except they're wearing Con Blue this time.


Yes... they did... 

Harper may not ask him to stand down... but can't his constituents force it?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> Here's where the hypocrisy bleeds in. Your statement:
> 
> "...to take over the portfolio of HRDC just smacks of political opportunism at its worst. At the very least, she should have accepted nothing from Martin."
> 
> ...


You are taking my quote out of context. It was wrong to accept the post in light of many things (e.g. timing, her reason for switching, that she ran for leadership of the Conservative Party).

I haven't taken a position on Emerson yet!!!! Get that in your heads people. No position = no hypocrisy. I haven't heard anything from him or the Conservatives yet.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm not shocked. Emerson was about as right-wing as a Liberal could get. I think that all the howling either against Stronach or against Emerson is political hot air. As long as there's no rule saying an MP can't do that or has to sit as an independent or run in a by-election, they will do it, if it suits their needs.

In my mind it looks worse politically on the Cons, who spoke out strongly against this type of thing, but really, how can anyone be surprised that this would happen? Only the naive would believe that the Cons were saying any of this stuff about accountability, ethics or credibility because they actually really believed it. And many of the naive took their perceptions to the ballot box. Well they threw the bums out and guess what - on day one they get more bums.

Which is why I never bought any of their holier than thou statements made while in opposition. And the Grewal affair proved that they would also use any means necessary if they thought it would give them power. Harper still hasn't answered that one. They took a third rate scandal and used it to blacken the image of an entire party and government and rode that into office. Who's surprised?


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Yes... they did...
> 
> Harper may not ask him to stand down... but can't his constituents force it?


Recalls are in provincial electoral law here in B.C. and possibly a few other provinces, but likely not federally. Admittedly I'm no authority on this, but I've never heard of a MP being recalled by their constituents -- or any attempts to do that. I welcome any clarification on that.

As it stands, I believe Emerson will remain Vancouver-Kingsway PM until he stands down... or another election is called. There may be criminal recourse, though -- if an MP is found guilty of a crime, they may be removed, I suppose...

Again, I'm no expert... but it's not looking good for the democratic process in Vancouver-Kingsway.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

VanNutt, you fail to see the parallels, but that does not surprise me.....


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> You are taking my quote out of context. It was wrong to accept the post in light of many things (e.g. timing, her reason for switching, that she ran for leadership of the Conservative Party).
> 
> I haven't taken a position on Emerson yet!!!! Get that in your heads people. No position = no hypocrisy. I haven't heard anything from him or the Conservatives yet.


You have taken a position on him; you like him:



Vandave said:


> Either way, Emerson is a great person to have in that position. Most people who know Emerson will tell you that he does not play 'traditional' politics and he is just interested in good policy and doing a good job. I even said on election night that I would have voted for him had he been in my riding, although he was a Liberal at that point.


The telling phrase is "either way". Hence the hypocrisy. Nothing is out of context.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Jim Flaherty is a scary figure - those you say that the Harper government as nothing is common with the Harris government, hope you are right.
Minister of finance under Harris and now Harper this "Canadian for Bush" is a pro-life, pro-privatization, neo-con.... His solution to homelessness was to make it illegal, just another case of attacking the victims and not the cause of the problems...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I can't figure out if the portfolio given to Stockwell is a significant one or not. What, exactly, is a Minister of Public Safety? (Ignoring the obvious cheapshot about him not making me feel safe in any way)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Jim Flaherty is a scary figure - those you say that the Harper government as nothing is common with the Harris government, hope you are right.
> Minister of finance under Harris and now Harper this "Canadian for Bush" is a pro-life, pro-privatization, neo-con....


Just so long as he doesn't steal heaps of our tax dollars and pass envelopes of unmarked cash to his buddies in dimly-lit Italian restaurants.  

Right now we can forgive almost anything as long as he doesn't act like the bums we just tossed out.:clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/abt/wwa/index-en.asp

How do you feel now?

On the upside, the agencies have highly trained staff and the key ones operate with significant autonomy. On the downside, well, look at the list of agencies.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/abt/wwa/index-en.asp
> 
> How do you feel now?.


Scared.... When do we get terror alert warnings?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Jim Flaherty is a scary figure...


How can anyone in a government headed by a fellow who looks after homeless kittens, and shows up for work with his wife and kids in a minivan, be scary?

He will have to do something *really* extreme at this point to get Joe and Jane Sixpack to think of him as scary.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Scared.... When do we get terror alert warnings?


As soon as the waterways clear for the Jetski public-notification team. If the jetskis are green, continue as you were. If they are yellow, look around furitively and, once your heart rate is up, continue as you were. If the jetskis are red, hijack one and head for the wilderness. Don't forget to always carry your standard issue wetsuit with you.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :clap: :clap: 

Go beej GO!


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

OK, thanks, I think, Beej. I am now officially scared. That vapour brain in charge of those agencies? Dammit.

Also, this just in - Fortier, the minister with no seat, will be appointed to the Senate until the next election. Weird.

edit - For those who like links.



> Even more surprising, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will appoint Fortier to the Senate.





> It is an odd decision for Harper, who campaigned on a promise of an elected Senate and spoke against the idea of unelected ministers.
> 
> "If you look carefully at what I said in the election campaign, I did leave open that possibility," he told reporters after the cabinet was sworn in.


Look very, very carefully, I would think...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> You have taken a position on him; you like him:.


That's right, I like him. I said this right after the election.



Mac Yak said:


> The telling phrase is "either way". Hence the hypocrisy. Nothing is out of context.


I don't see this as hypocrisy.

He has a big role to play in the softwood lumber dispute. He is from the province most affected by the dispute and he obviously knows a lot about the industry, having been a former CEO of Canfor. This is a good thing for BC and Canada.

I have yet to pass judgment on this. More to come....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> I can't figure out if the portfolio given to Stockwell is a significant one or not.


So, we have, so far:
Emerson who crossed the floor not out of principal but for a cabinet post. 

Fortier who is appointed by Harper. Fortier was rejected by voters twice, this is rewarding a friend.

A Harris all-star who sold the 407 to cover up a $3 billion deficit in the Harris government - yes, Mr Flaherty...

We have a defence lobbyist in the position of Minister of Defence (Gordon O'Connor) 

Vic Toews is Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, this wing-nut opposes same-sex marriage, anti-gay, oppose Bill C-250, has a poor history as Minister of Justice, tracked calls to a hotline, wants some kind of US style judge appointment. Let's not forget that this person also pleaded guilty to overspending vis-a-vis campaign expense limits during the 1999 election...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just so long as they don't steal, artistseries. That's all we ask. :lmao:


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Vandave said:
> 
> 
> > If she wanted to vote her conscience and if she didn’t agree with Harper’s views, she should have sat as an independent. But, to take over the portfolio of HRDC just smacks of political opportunism at its worst. At the very least, she should have accepted nothing from Martin.
> ...


Where's the hypocrisy? You might well ask, "where are the consonants?" A conservative (in a riding that had a strong liberal vote) crosses the floor citing conscience, and you say that, if that is so, she should sit as an independent. 

A guy who was elected liberal just two weeks ago (in a riding where the conservatives were a DISTANT third), crosses the floor:
- without even once taking the seat his riding elected him to;
- knowing to a moral certainty that he would have lost the election, and not been in parliament at all, if he had flown is true colours for the election;
- to take the reward of a cabinet post, certainly carrying the same unseemly lack of principle you attributed to Stronach;
- without a new liberal leader having been chosen, such that the policy direction of the party or his leader cannot ostensibly be one that he could have a principled objection to.

And you say what? The jury's out on this one? That's the ehmac joke of the day.

If Stronach disenfranchised the voters in her riding, Emerson's conduct was much worse. I'd love to hear what facade of principle will be manufactured for this.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'd think that the voters of Vancouver might be pleasantly surprised to find that they had an elected MP on the power side of government. And a cabinet minister, to boot!

That'd put them one up on Toronto and Montreal, after all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chantal Hebert as usual has an excellent perspective



> *Tory hold on power may not be as secure as it looks
> Liberal-NDP coalition could present a viable alternative*
> Toronto Star
> Feb. 6, 2006. 01:00 AM
> ...


*

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983

My my those elephants do get around 

"the ministers appointed today should never lose sight of the fact that there actually is a potential alternative government sitting across from them."

Representing 63% of the voters. Eggshells indeed.*


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah. They just need a leader.  

Those seem to be in short supply these days.:lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> My my those elephants do get around
> 
> "_*the ministers appointed today should never lose sight of the fact that there actually is a potential alternative government sitting across from them.*"_
> 
> Representing 63% of the voters. Eggshells indeed.


The myth of the Liberal Party being left wing and idiologically similar to the NDP and Bloc is garbage.

Those 3 parties will not form a minority government. The NDP and Liberals couldn't hold it together on their own.

They would call an election before forming a government.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> I'd think that the voters of Vancouver might be pleasantly surprised to find that they had an elected MP on the power side of government. And a cabinet minister, to boot!
> 
> That'd put them one up on Toronto and Montreal, after all.



And accomplished in a backhanded, dishonest, anti-democratic way -- just like the "bums" that were thrown out. Except the difference is that it's totally OK by Conservative supporters if their beloved party does this. It is certainly NOT OK for non-Conservatives to do this, and if a non-Conservative does this it's totally OK to call them "whores" and "sluts" and even more disgusting names, right?

But when it's the Conservatives doing the very same thing they purport to hate and vow to put a stop to, it's totally OK. The fact that some Conservative supporters see nothing wrong with this and continue to offer mealy-mouthed excuses for this behaviour is really telling. It's too bad this idiotic behaviour seems to escape their notice.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> But when it's the Conservatives doing the very same thing they purport to hate and vow to put a stop to, it's totally OK. The fact that some Conservative supporters see nothing wrong with this and continue to offer mealy-mouthed excuses for this behaviour is really telling. It's too bad this idiotic behaviour seems to escape their notice.


Who are these people??


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Just so long as they don't steal...


On their first day in office, the Conservatives stole an MP. More theft to follow. Trust me on this :lmao:


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Who are these people??


They also have a tendency to not recognize such characterizations as being pertinent to themselves.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Chantal Hebert as usual has an excellent perspective
> ===From the referenced article===
> "If it came to an early showdown between the opposition and the incoming government, the Liberals and the NDP have enough members between them to cobble together a coalition and offer it up as a replacement."
> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983


Interesting idea, is there any precedent for this when previous minorities fell in Canada?

Still, I don't think the Grits and NDP are likely to form a coalition anytime soon, and if they did, they would still be a minority so they would have to "walk on eggshells" so they didn't give the Tories or the Bloc a reason to topple them.


MacDoc said:


> Representing 63% of the voters. Eggshells indeed.


Grit + NDP != 63% of the voters.

From http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/

CON 124 36.25%
LIB 103 30.22%
BQ 51 10.48%
NDP 29 17.49%
IND 1 .52%
OTH 5.05%


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Mac Yak said:


> On their first day in office, the Conservatives stole an MP. More to follow. Trust me on this :lmao:


Just so long as they don't swipe all our money. They can "steal" all the MP's they want to, as far as I'm concerned.

(I suspect that many more Liberals might be seriously considering leaping from the deck of that sinking ship right now).

And you can trust me on this.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Just so long as they don't swipe all our money. They can "steal" all the MP's they want to, as far as I'm concerned.


Yup. Yet another example of "I don't care; we won the election. Our boys and girls can do whatever they want to."

Vandave, here's another example of "who are these people?!" that you asked about. MacNutt's waiting to give you the keys to the executive washroom at the Con Club...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Mac Yak said:


> Yup. Yet another example of "I don't care; we won the election. Our boys and girls can do whatever they want to."


Not quite, Mac Yak. I get seriously cheesed if the incoming Conservatives began stealing heaps of tax money. But it would have to be huge amounts to make me hate them as much as the Liberals.

Oh...and they'd have to also mismanage some (all) major government programs. And let our military wither away even further. And...and...and....

THEN I'd hate em. But they'd sure have a long way to go before they ever exceeded the excesses of the old Liberals. I think we can all agree on that.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Not quite, Mac Yak. I get seriously cheesed if the incoming Conservatives began stealing heaps of tax money. But it would have to be huge amounts to make me hate them as much as the Liberals.
> 
> Oh...and they'd have to also mismanage some (all) major government programs. And let our military wither away even further. And...and...and....
> 
> THEN I'd hate em. But they'd sure have a long way to go before they ever exceeded the excesses of the old Liberals. I think we can all agree on that.


So the end justifies the means, does it? It's OK for Conservatives to act like Liberals when it suits them? If that's the case, it's time to do away with political parties altogether! In fact, this looks like a job for...

ConLib Thing!

Unleashed from accountability! Able to leap tall dichomoties in a single bound! Able to reconcile any irrationality!

Look! Up on Parliament Hill! It's a turd! It's a pain! IT'S...

ConLib THING!

>insert theme music<


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> Not quite, Mac Yak. I get seriously cheesed if the incoming Conservatives began stealing heaps of tax money.



No, you'd just yammer about how much less they stole than the Libs.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually, Mac Yak , I think the Libs...or whatever's left of them a few years down the road...will end up in some sort of an alliance with the NDP. Sort of a NewLibDemoralCrat or something...(somebody STOP me!):lmao:

Meanwhile.....back at the farm.....Canada will be ticking along very nicely


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> I can't figure out if the portfolio given to Stockwell is a significant one or not. What, exactly, is a Minister of Public Safety? (Ignoring the obvious cheapshot about him not making me feel safe in any way)


Great.

The political equivalent of Elmer Fudd is now in charge of keeping terrorists out of Canada.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Let's all start throwing stones at the new kid as he walks into school on day one. Based on the fact that the old kid he replaced was such an lying a**hole. That shows lot's of maturity.:heybaby:
> 
> Stephen Harper has an interesting road to tread in the next little while. Let's all pray for a snap election so he can get the majority that he needs to actually govern for the next half decade. I hope that what's left of the leaderless and devastated Liberal party causes that snap election, too. Preferably in the next few months.


Within five minutes of becoming Prime Minister, Harper did several things he promised he would not do.

Add to this promising not to appoint Senators and appointing Fortier to the Senate in order to give him cabinet post. Harper also promised no unelected cabinet ministers.

Broken promises are really adding up. Wait for day 2 !


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

YEAH! I'm personally outraged!! Let's dump the bums and get back the old Liberals, eh?:heybaby: 

They. Were. MUCH. More. Ethical. After all. (splat):lmao:


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> YEAH! I'm personally outraged!! Let's dump the bums and get back the old Liberals, eh?:heybaby:
> 
> They. Were. MUCH. More. Ethical. After all. (splat):lmao:


There is a third viable federal political option -- the NDP.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Mac Yak said:


> Recalls are in provincial electoral law here in B.C. and possibly a few other provinces, but likely not federally. Admittedly I'm no authority on this, but I've never heard of a MP being recalled by their constituents -- or any attempts to do that. I welcome any clarification on that.
> 
> As it stands, I believe Emerson will remain Vancouver-Kingsway PM until he stands down... or another election is called. There may be criminal recourse, though -- if an MP is found guilty of a crime, they may be removed, I suppose...
> 
> Again, I'm no expert... but it's not looking good for the democratic process in Vancouver-Kingsway.


I'm no expert either which is why I asked the question. 

At the very least Emerson is guilty of misrepresentation... it doesn't matter how you cut it something just happened that some here say they are against... "force"... the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway is now Con by force not by choice. 

This whole thing reeks of manipulation and hypocrisy... I don't believe for a minute that this was not planned before the election in the event of a Harper victory. Talk about "employment security"! 

Myself... I'd be absolutely willing to give an NDP gov. of some sort a chance at it. I don't see why an Liberal-NDP coalition would be in a worse position than Harper's minority gov. even if it does mean Martin continues to be the leader until a new leader is elected however long that takes. Harper is showing his true colours already.

Stockwell Day in charge of "homeland security"?  
Be afraid... be very afraid...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> At the very least Emerson is guilty of misrepresentation... it doesn't matter how you cut it something just happened that some here say they are against... "force"... the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway is now Con by force not by choice.


And some would call it choice, which is technically correct. They chose Emerson, and all the risks that entailed. Of course, in practical and casual language, they were forced. :lmao:


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> There is a third viable federal political option -- the NDP.


They're not really a viable option at this point. It seems the NDP have their core support and not much more than that. Even in this election, where there was a strong desire for change, they only managed to pull off 17.49% of the popular vote (reference: http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/).

If the NDP wanted to have a shot at governing, they would need to move their platform to the centre, and muzzle some of their more "scary" and "extreme" supporters.

Where have we seen *that* before...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

WHAT-ever *Beej*... they did NOT get what they voted for. Force is force... not just when it suits you... 



> Former industry minister David Emerson said his decision to defect from the Liberals and take a cabinet post in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government was made to better serve his constituents.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...rson_defection_060206/20060206?hub=TopStories

If those were his feelings he should have run as a Conservative and persuaded his constituents he was the one they "wanted" to vote for... the time to cross the floor was before the election not right after period.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Stockwell Day in charge of "homeland security"?
> Be afraid... be very afraid...


Thank you for inadvertently reminding me, Dreambird. Here is the rest of the cabinet sworn in today to the 28th Administration:

Boy Prime Minister: Stephen Harper

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform: Robert Nicholson. Mulroney-era lawyer with a similar historical background. 

Leader of the Government in the Senate: Marjory LeBreton. She's been around since Diefenbaker, and was credited with helping to pilot the campaign -- at least by CTV's pundits.

Minister of Finance: James Flaherty. Hated by anti-Harris Ontarians as a cut-and-slash guy. Well, better him in the portfolio than Jason Kenney, I suppose...

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: Peter MacKay. This shows the Cons *do* have a sense of humour and history as well. After all, Brian Mulroney gave Joe Clark the same Foreign Minister posting.

Minister of Justice; Attorney General of Canada: Vic Toews. Hardline Southern Manitoba Con who rose as a Reformer. Not a fan of the progressive social agenda.

Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics: David Emerson. Lots of talk so far about this up-and-coming go-getter... :yikes: 

Minister of the Treasury Board: John Baird. Poli-sci wonk and Ontario co-chair for Stephen Harper's leadership campaign. Served as co-chair of Jim Flaherty's Ontario PC leadership campaign. A suitably rewarded gopher gets a nice pork tenderloin.

Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario: Tony Clement. By an eyelash.  Is a rival to Stockboy and Monte for the title of Dimmest Bulb in Cabinet.

Minister of Defence: Gordon O'Connor.

Minister of Public Safety: Stockwell Day. What could possibly go wrong here? After all, it's about time Canada got its own Jet-ski Squadron. 

Minister of Veterans Affairs: Gregory Thompson.

Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board: Chuck Strahl. A logger as Wheat Board head? This oughta be interesting...

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Loyola Hearn. Newfoundland teacher and two-term MLA. Better him for the portfolio than Rahim Jaffer, I suppose...

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians: Jim Prentice. The treaty negotiations ought to be fun...

Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities: Lawrence Cannon. Mmmm... pork for Quebec!

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: Monte Solberg. A Darwin Award candidate in the making if ever there was one.

Minister of Environment: Rona Ambrose. Poli-sci-ster who is 36 and speaks four languages. Being pleasant to the eye shouldn't hurt the working environment on the Hill, either.

Minister of Natural Resources: Gary Lunn. Nice work giving this one to a guy with rocks in his head. No wonder MacNutt likes him; too bad you don't live in Saanich, hey Gerry?

President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport: Michael Chong. Another poli-sci acolyte, 34, who was most recently a communications hack for the NHL Players' Association. Let's hope he's "fit" for three portfolios  

Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec: Jean-Pierre Blackburn. _Le Mandarin_ is the obvious choice. 

Minister of Public Works and Government Services: Michael Fortier. Unelected slimeball gets patronage pick. More non-democracy from the Harper Conservatives. 

Minister of Industry: corporate lawyer Maxime Bernier. Certainly nothing could ever go amiss here, could it? 

Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification: Carol Skelton. Apparently another "two-sport star," and it will certainly be interesting to see how those who are "doubling up" are doing in a few months time -- if they make it that far.

Minister of Human Resources and Social Development: Diane Finley. National Citizens Committee wonkette. 

Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women: Bev Oda. I believe she is the first Japanese-Canadian woman MP. 

Minister of International Co-operation and Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages: Josee Verner.


So there you have it, folks: your brand-new, minty-fresh CanCon Cabinet! Let the bumbling begin! Oh yeah, it already has... :lmao:


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

polls showed there wasn't a big desire for change per se, just people wanting to get the Liberals out.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

darkscot said:


> polls showed there wasn't a big desire for change per se, just people wanting to get the Liberals out.


Mule fritters and hogwash, sayeth the Prime Minister to you, sir!

"Canadians voted for change," said the Boy PM at his inaguration this A.M. So it has to be true!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> WHAT-ever *Beej*... they did NOT get what they voted for. Force is force... not just when it suits you...


I mentioned that you were technically correct, but in casual language they were forced. The same for Emerson and closed-shops. I have been consistent on this, it is you who appears to be using 'forced' in one context but rejecting it in another. But I think that's just appearance, and that you're actually consistent on this, deep down.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> So there you have it, folks: your brand-new, minty-fresh CanCon Cabinet! Let the bumbling begin! Oh yeah, it already has... :lmao:


I'm sure you have an equally snide (and not always reasonable) breakdown of Martin's cabinet because you wouldn't be yet another partisan/anti-partisan mouthpiece on ehmac.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> They're not really a viable option at this point. It seems the NDP have their core support and not much more than that. Even in this election, where there was a strong desire for change, they only managed to pull off 17.49% of the popular vote (reference: http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/).
> 
> If the NDP wanted to have a shot at governing, they would need to move their platform to the centre, and muzzle some of their more "scary" and "extreme" supporters.
> 
> Where have we seen *that* before...


They are a viable option. However, there are many people still for whom the letters NDP might as well read CCCP... as in Soviet-style authoritarian Communism. Which is the same thing as asserting that all Conservatives are automatically Fascists. Hey, some are... lots of zealots on both sides, as we've all seen. But the NDP has to sever the one connection that does the most damage to it: its tie to organized labour.

For this one reason, Jack Layton should be beating the campaign-financing drum more loudly than anyone else. Campaign and party donations should be restricted to a $1,000 maximum per person per year. That way, the NDP can give the boot to the big unions and start campaigning on a pro-Canada, pro-people platform. Hell, the way I feel about it, I might just write a note to Mr. Layton on these very points


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mac Yak said:


> Thank you for inadvertently reminding me, Dreambird. Here is the rest of the cabinet sworn in today to the 28th Administration:
> 
> Boy Prime Minister: Stephen Harper
> So there you have it, folks: your brand-new, minty-fresh CanCon Cabinet! Let the bumbling begin! Oh yeah, it already has... :lmao:


Feel better now that you have spewed all your venom?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

No, you didn't say I was "technically correct" you said:



> And some would call it choice, which is technically correct.


But I'm not going to get on the "definitions merry-go-'round" with you... OK?

Heck even if it's not OK...


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

SINC said:


> Feel better now that you have spewed all your venom?


Venom? Where?! Damn, I thought I was being funny! Are you sure you went to your promised eye-doctor appointment, SINC?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> I'd think that the voters of Vancouver might be pleasantly surprised to find that they had an elected MP on the power side of government. And a cabinet minister, to boot!
> 
> That'd put them one up on Toronto and Montreal, after all.


Pleasantly surprised wouldn't exactly be the word for it, I heard irate callers from the riding on both CKNW and CBC (right and left) radio call in shows today. There are people there who think Emerson should go to jail for fraud or maybe just publicly flogged. On CBC they had former Con MP Val Meredith saying to them "Oh I sympathize with their anger, but they just have to realize it's really for the best." Hilarious, you could almost hear her squirming in her seat. (Hey maybe having the Cons in charge will be more fun than I thought )

I'd say if you want to see some "pleasantly surprised" people my guess is you'll get to see quite a few on the 6 o-clock news tonight. 

Someone calling in made the point that the person who might feel the most ripped off is Ian Waddell, the NDP candidate who didn't lose by much to Emerson. If Emerson had run as a Con or had warned the voters that he was considering a switch if things didn't go his way, Waddell would have won easily. The riding is a traditional NDP stronghold, and I believe the Lib riding association is a fair bit pinker than their (former) candidate who was parachuted in by Martin in 2004 over many objections at the time.

I have to admit to a fair bit of schadenfreude at the expense of both the Libs and the Cons at this turn of events.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> No, you didn't say I was "technically correct" you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, calling it choice is technically correct. As I said before...a couple times. In casual use of language (without academic-style precision, for clarity), these things are 'forced'. You can technically choose not to work in a closed shop, and people technically chose Emerson and the associated risks with an individual. In a casual use of the language, it can be called 'forced'. No merry-go-round there. Please explain where this doesn't seem clear.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Beej said:


> Yes, calling it choice is technically correct. As I said before...a couple times. In casual use of language (without academic-style precision, for clarity), these things are 'forced'. You can technically choose not to work in a closed shop, and people technically chose Emerson and the associated risks with an individual. In a casual use of the language, it can be called 'forced'. No merry-go-round there. Please explain where this doesn't seem clear.


Do you really think the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway knew that this might happen? According to the calls to local talk radio here, no sir, they most certainly did not. Many don't even know that he's the former head honcho at Canfor, for God's sake. I mean, doesn't the timing of this look premeditated at all? And this after he was a vocal participant in the election campaign:

"We're gonna make a heck of a lot of noise in Ottawa" was one of his battle cries. The noise he's making now sure sounds a LOT like sucking. tptptptp

As for democracy? Well, ya gotta break some eggs to make an omelette, right? And it's those nice Conservatives what did it, not those evil LIEbranos, so it's all good. The sun is rising in Canada again


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> ...But the NDP has to sever the one connection that does the most damage to it: its tie to organized labour.


Agreed! But this may be easier said then done, as organized labour and the NDP go *way* back to the founding of the party. Get rid of organized labour and they would need a new name, like maybe CCF 

That said, it seems that a centrist platform is needed to win an election in Canada, and even without Big Labour the NDP would be well left of the mainstream, which will ultimately limit their appeal.

Perhaps if the Tories stay in for a while, there will be a "unite the left" movement to put an end to vote splitting, and the merger of the Liberals and NDP will win a minority running on a moderate, centre left platform. Deja vu all over again!


Mac Yak said:


> Campaign and party donations should be restricted to a $1,000 maximum per person per year.


This is part of the Tory "Accountability" platform, and will almost certainly get passed. Regardless of what you might think of the rest of the Tory platform, it's pretty hard to argue with this plank.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> Do you really think the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway knew that this might happen?


I don't think they had any idea, and would have voted very differently had they known. This is a risk of our system. Despite parties being very powerful in Canada, ultimate power does lie with the individual MP. Your voting 'choice' (technically accurate usage) involves a great number of unknowns, as do most choices. Practially speaking, the MP can 'force' (casual usage) a riding to switch parties. In the end, the riding gets whom they vote for, not necessarily 'what' they vote for. I don't mind this system, but it has its downsides.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> Agreed! But this may be easier said then done, as organized labour and the NDP go *way* back to the founding of the party. Get rid of organized labour and they would need a new name, like maybe CCF


And maybe George Stroumboloupolous from CBC's The Hour can be the 21st-century's Tommy Douglas. Hmm... maybe not...



PenguinBoy said:


> This is part of the Tory "Accountability" platform, and will almost certainly get passed. Regardless of what you might think of the rest of the Tory platform, it's pretty hard to argue with this plank.


No argument here on that point. If the Federal Accountability Act gets passed with that provision, great. If not, then there should be an investigation.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I thought this was funny... This just in!!! Exclusive! Gurmant Grewal says he has tapes of the Emerson deal!


> Grewal will be releasing the first 5 minutes of tapes dealing with Harper's deal with Emerson. Greal will then follow it up a few days later with the first cut of the tapes and matching transcripts. Oh and then about a week later Grewal will release the Redux Special edition in a Special Limited Edition of Grewal Tapes Ottawa.


And I rarely agree with Andrew Coyne but I think he nailed it in his blog today...


> Well, I guess the Liberal leadership race is on again. I don't want to overstate things, but this business of Emerson and Fortier has all the makings of a public relations fiasco for the Tories -- on their first day, and on their issue: ethics and accountability.
> 
> At least, I hope it does. It may be that the big brains around Harper are right, and this is a "one-day issue," of interest to the media and no one else. The Liberals can't say anything about it, of course, and the poor defrauded citizens of Vancouver-Kingsway can be bought off, rather as Emerson was, with a cabinet seat. Cynical, true, but who knows, maybe they're right.
> 
> But suppose they're wrong, and this quickly metastasizes, casting doubt on everything the Tories do -- the filter through which every subsequent statement or action is viewed, the moment when they squandered their biggest asset: the expectation that this time, after so many governments came to power promising to "clean house in Ottawa", this time would be different.


Thanks, Emerson and Harper for giving me something to laugh at today. :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GA quoted Coyne, and we agreed on something (Spector). I've always wanted to see a flying pig, and today seems to be the day!


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Harpinocchio, the Wooden Boy Prime Minister. :lmao:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> GA quoted Coyne, and we agreed on something (Spector). I've always wanted to see a flying pig, and today seems to be the day!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


>


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Here's my position.

It was wrong for Emerson to accept the position in the way he did. I think he could have continued to sit as a Liberal (as strange as that would be), could have sat as an Independent or called a bi-election.

This is definately a good move for Vancouver and for BC. He will be in charge of the three most important issues in BC right now, which include the Olympics, the Gateway project and the Softwood lumber dispute. We need a strong person to handle these files and I am glad he is in the position.

Flame away.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I think the porker kind of looks a bit like David Emerson, no?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> This is definately a good move for Vancouver and for BC.


For me, adding socially moderate voices (is he? I haven't heard socon stuff from him, but I haven't heard much social stuff from him) to the Conservatives is good in that it helps shift the internal balance of power. 

I would have preferred one more loss for them and then the inevitable soul-searching and, hopefully, coming to the conclusion that they must be Progressive Conservatives (they already came to the conclusion that they must at least act like PCs). I didn't get the loss (but Martin is going, so chalk one up for me!) so next best is more moderates in the party.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Here's my position.
> 
> It was wrong for Emerson to accept the position in the way he did. I think he could have continued to sit as a Liberal (as strange as that would be), could have sat as an Independent or called a bi-election.


How about it was wrong for the Con party to offer him a cabinet post? Really VanNutt you are being an apologist of the higher order and I'm sure other neo-con soldiers will praise you for your acceptance of doublespeak.


Vandave said:


> This is definately a good move for Vancouver and for BC. He will be in charge of the three most important issues in BC right now, which include the Olympics, the Gateway project and the Softwood lumber dispute. We need a strong person to handle these files and I am glad he is in the position.


Why would this even be a good move for BC? Are you somehow saying that someone from Alberta could not of done a good job? Using tactics that Harper so vigourously decried remove ALL credibility from the Cons.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Vandave said:


> It was wrong for Emerson to accept the position in the way he did. I think he could have continued to sit as a Liberal (as strange as that would be), could have sat as an Independent or called a bi-election.


I think a by-election is called for if Emerson wants to sit as a Tory. Not because it goes against the proposed accountability act, or any parliamentary rules, but because it would send a clear message about going above and beyond minimum that is required here.


Vandave said:


> This is definately a good move for Vancouver and for BC. He will be in charge of the three most important issues in BC right now, which include the Olympics, the Gateway project and the Softwood lumber dispute. We need a strong person to handle these files and I am glad he is in the position.


Agreed! And if Emerson were to *lose* (most likely to the NDP) in a by-election, Vancouver would hardly be in a position to complain about lack of cabinet representation.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> How about it was wrong for the Con party to offer him a cabinet post? Really VanNutt you are being an apologist of the higher order and I'm sure other neo-con soldiers will praise you for your acceptance of doublespeak.
> Why would this even be a good move for BC? Are you somehow saying that someone from Alberta could not of done a good job? Using tactics that Harper so vigourously decried remove ALL credibility from the Cons.


Yes, I agree. It was wrong for the Cons to offer him a post.

This is a good move for BC because no other MP knows as much about the Softwood file as Emerson. Not even close.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Mike Harris' croonies made it to the big top, Let the show begin.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

dolawren said:


> Mike Harris' cronies made it to the big top, Let the show begin.


And for all those who kept saying this election had nothing to do with Mike Harris, you were officially full of it. I believe there are 4 former Harris cronies on cabinet, including the all-important finance minister.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> including the all-important finance minister.


If anything will make the GTA circle the wagons that move will. I'm beginning to like the idea Chantel Hebert has of a Liberal NDP coalition......
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983

Wonder how gutsy Duceppe really is.......??

When's the first Opposition day ??


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If anything will make the GTA circle the wagons that move will. I'm beginning to like the idea Chantel Hebert has of a Liberal NDP coalition......
> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983
> 
> Wonder how gutsy Duceppe really is.......??
> ...


Keep dreaming MacDoc. It's all you'll have for the next few years.:lmao:


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> If anything will make the GTA circle the wagons that move will. I'm beginning to like the idea Chantel Hebert has of a Liberal NDP coalition......
> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983
> 
> Wonder how gutsy Duceppe really is.......??
> ...


Good article... 



> As they (Conservatives) ponder how much of their agenda they can safely move forward, the ministers appointed today should never lose sight of the fact that there actually is a potential alternative government sitting across from them.


Indeed...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Let's all start throwing stones at the new kid as he walks into school on day one. Based on the fact that the old kid he replaced was such an lying a**hole. That shows lot's of maturity.:heybaby:
> 
> Stephen Harper has an interesting road to tread in the next little while. Let's all pray for a snap election so he can get the majority that he needs to actually govern for the next half decade. I hope that what's left of the leaderless and devastated Liberal party causes that snap election, too. Preferably in the next few months.


Bienvenue a league grand.
Welcome to the big leagues.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And for all those who kept saying this election had nothing to do with Mike Harris, you were officially full of it. I believe there are 4 former Harris cronies on cabinet, including the all-important finance minister.



Common Sense Revolution and lots of payola and pigs at the trough - see Hydro Once nuclear "consultants" that took Ontarians money, to the tune of millions, and ran like rabbits

funny thing is that they never did anything to help out Ontario's energy generation problems and guess what? Hydro One is worse than ever

Mike Harris, we ain't gonna forgive you.
If I ever see you at a golf course I will swing away and not yell 'fore!'


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Beej said:


> I'm sure you have an equally snide (and not always reasonable) breakdown of Martin's cabinet because you wouldn't be yet another partisan/anti-partisan mouthpiece on ehmac.


Sure, I'm game!

Old Boy Ex-Prime Minister: Paul Martin aka The Bermudan Shipping Magnate.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: Anne McLellan. Had the gun registry hung around her neck by her patron, ex-ex-PM Crouton. She sure talked a good game, but did she ever get anything done in her three terms in office?

Minister of Finance: Ralph Goodale. Seemed like a Paul Martin in waiting... a good numbers person who likely doesn't have the stuff PMs should be made of. 

Minister of National Defence: Bill Graham. Another dithering waffler, just like his now ex-boss. 

Minister of the Environment: Stephane Dion. In terms of effectiveness, he's the Bill Graham of Quebec.

Minister of Foreign Affairs: Pierre Pettigrew. Much bluster; little substance.

Minister of Health: Ujjal Dosanjh. Ineffective former B.C. NDP caretaker premier who became a tuncoat and a craven apologist for the federal Libs. 

Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie: Jacques Saada.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada: Irwin Cotler. World-reknowned academic, sworn enemy of war criminals, and allegedly a solid table-tennis player.

President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board: Reg Alcock. Haughty Manitoban. That looks like a contradiction in terms, like "compassionate Conservative."

Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: Joe Volpe. Longtime Martin supporter, and no fan of the "Librano$" monicker.

Minister of State (Human Resources Development): Claudette Bradshaw. Demoted from the Labour Ministry by Martin. 

Minister of Transport:	Jean Lapierre. Did not deliver the vote in Quebec as expected. Has placed his foot firmly in his mouth a few times.

Minister of Public Works and Government Services: Scott Brison. Despite being openly gay and crossing the floor himself, he has held onto the rural New Brunswick riding of Kings-Hants. He might just make an effective leader for the Libs. 

Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women: Liza Frulla. Also served as Minister of Social Development. Yes, yes she did.

Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Sport): Stephen Owen. Career bureaucrat and a cousin of two-term Vancouver mayor Philip Owen. Took a lot of heat in the House for the sponsorship scandal while he was Minister of Public Works. 

Minister of International Trade: Jim Peterson. The brother of ex-Ontario premier David Peterson. Wasn't much of a presence. 

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: Tony Valeri. Benifitted from the shivving of Nobody's Baby, Sheila Copps, in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek.

Minister of Industry: David Emerson. According to ehMac's own Vandave: "Most people who know Emerson will tell you that he does not play 'traditional' politics and he is just interested in good policy and doing a good job." We'll go with that  

Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food: Andy Mitchell. Not much of an impact. Considering that Ag was his portfolio, maybe he was just a Hoarse Whisperer...

Minister of Natural Resources: John Efford. Was speculated to be in ill health, but apparently got better or something. Hopefully, this is actually the case -- for his sake.

Minister of Labour and Housing: Joe Fontana. Bulldog Joe ran the Liberal Caucus from 1996 to '99. It's true!

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians: Andy Scott. Infamous former Solicitor-General who probably doesn't send Christmas cards to Dick Proctor... 

Minister of National Revenue: John McCallum. Former Minister of Defence and of Veteran's Affairs. Hopefully he knows where Dieppe is by now. 

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration	: Judy Sgro. Resigned as a result of "StripperGate," later exonerated by the federal Ethics Commissioner. 

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Geoff Regan. Former N.S. premier Gerald's boy. 

Minister of Veterans Affairs: Albina Guarnieri. Martin loyalist. Apparently "changed" her mind on same-sex marriage.

Minister of Social Development	: Ken Dryden. Not even he could make the save for this party.

Leader of the Government in the Senate: Jacob Austin. Senator Jack was appointed by Trudeau. Yes, _that_ Trudeau.

President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: Lucienne Robillard. Among several other portfolios in her long service for Chretien, she was also Minister responsible for the federal campaign in the 1995 Quebec referendum.

Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities): John Godfrey. This Martinista is a former editor of the Financial Post, and is apparently preparing a run at the leadership. This smacks of masochism to me  

Minister of State (Multiculturalism): Raymond Chan. Kicked floor-crossing former Reformer Joe Peschisolido to the curb in the suburban Vancouver riding of Richmond. Associated with the Head Tax controversy.

Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario): Joe Comuzzi. Four-term MP resigned from cabinet over Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act.

Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: Joe McGuire. P.E.I.er has been in the House of Commons since 1988. Still is, too. 

Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence: Mauril Belanger. Onetime holder of the record for Canada's biggest business card.

Minister of State (Public Health): Carolyn Bennett. Much-honored contributor to society, and apparently much appeciated by Martin for remaining a vocal critic of Chretien in caucus.

Minister for International Cooperation: Aileen Carroll. Former Barrie city councillor who lost the riding to the Cons in 2006.

Minister of State (Families and Caregivers): Tony Ianno. Finally lost Trinity-Spadina to Olivia Chow in January.

Minister of State (Northern Development): Ethel Blondin-Andrew. She's at the top of the gold-plated MP pension list, estimated to be in line for more than $3.7 million if she lives to 75. 


So there you have it, Beej: in the interests of "fairness," there is my "equally snide and not-always reasonable" take on the former Martin cabinet. Consider this as your early Christmas gift from me


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> Sure, I'm game!
> ...
> So there you have it, Beej: in the interests of "fairness," there is my "equally snide and not-always reasonable" take on the former Martin cabinet. Consider this as your early Christmas gift from me


:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Excellent job!

Now what do I get you?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap:
> 
> Excellent job!
> 
> Now what do I get you?


Is that "get" or "quit?"


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

> I believe there are 4 former Harris cronies on cabinet, including the all-important finance minister.


I hear he's looking to sell the 401.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I have to admit that I am glad to see a smaller cabinet. As a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, I like to see some of the "bloat" in Ottawa deflated. Of course, it appears that this is a more conservative cabinet, so my hopes for more spending on those in need may go by the wayside. We shall see.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr G, it only means a few less jobs on the cabinet level. 
The cabinet itself does not inspire any confidence.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Dr G, it only means a few less jobs on the cabinet level.
> The cabinet itself does not inspire any confidence.


There's also quite a number of 'staffer' job reductions but, overall, no material savings on government finances.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*What Is Wrong With You! People!*

The *BEST* kind of hypocrisy is the *RIGHT* kind of hypocrisy. Don't you get it.

The high and mighty can always stand their moral high ground and tell you "we are entitled to our entitlements;" "it's for the good" and "trust me on this." Come on! Get with the program. Soon as you learn the right side is better, life will improve. 

And don't count on reality as any sort of gage. 

Let the "new ins" rip you a new a$$whole(thing is for their plunder) while you're focused on hypocrisy or some other distraction.XX)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Michael Fortier is a scary choice. The co-chair of his leadership campaign does not have to answer any questions on how he handles his new portfolio. As a senator, he does not have to answer any questions in the House of Commons. What a way to reward a hack....


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Beej said:


> http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/abt/wwa/index-en.asp
> 
> How do you feel now?
> 
> On the upside, the agencies have highly trained staff and the key ones operate with significant autonomy. On the downside, well, look at the list of agencies.


And don't forget, Harper wants to create the equivalent of a CIA agency - so Stockwell, that idiot, will be in charge of the Canadian CIA as well. Not sure we really need another security agency, they could have assigned this manadate to CSIS, after all what is CSIS doing. 

As for MacNutt, I'm sure he'd be even happy if Paul Martin crossed the floor over to the Conservatives. MacNutt doesn't seem to really care if the Conservative party is made up of Liberals or Conservatives or even Bloc members. If you asked me, Emerson is even dirtier and more of an opportunist than Stronach. Emerson was just elected days ago as a Liberal, if he wanted to be a Conservative, why didn't he run as a Conservative in the election.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

BigDL said:


> The high and mighty can always stand their moral high ground and tell you "we are entitled to our entitlements;"


This phrase is really starting to annoy me. For some reason, people don't think people are entitled to their work benefits. For example, the mint guy, who did nothing wrong (and they use as an example of this), other than make some deal with Tim Horton's to distribute the new coins, is fired. And you don't think he's entitled to his severance, and pension? This is just WRONG. People work hard for their pensions and benefits, just like the private sector. What benefits are in their contracts are what they are entitled to and there is nothing wrong with that. That'd be like telling me that after 15 years of work I'm not entitled to my benefits (entitilements). Let's take your pension and other benefits away and see how you like it.

Correction: he resigned and was not fired.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Kosh said:


> This phrase is really starting to annoy me. For some reason, people don't think people are entitled to their work benefits.


It's ok because he's a big bad rich person. They're only entitled to our jealously and indignation regarding their success. I wonder how many top leaders would actually be interested in running Crown corps. after seeing Dingwall hauled in front of a committee and ridiculed over gum. You want to give back to your country? Why bother, you'll just get treated like poop on top of being paid less than in the private sector. The civil service already has trouble attracting the best. Dingwall was an insider, but the message to all is clear: stay in the private sector.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Beej said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap:
> 
> Excellent job!
> 
> Now what do I get you?


All I need is a thank-you, which you've done. I'm easy to shop for


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If anything will make the GTA circle the wagons that move will. I'm beginning to like the idea Chantel Hebert has of a Liberal NDP coalition......
> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983
> 
> Wonder how gutsy Duceppe really is.......??
> ...


I think this whole idea of an NDP / Liberal coalition is a pipe dream.

Not only would the NDP and Liberals have to work together (which they couldn't in the last parliament), but they would only have 131 seats so they would need the support of the Bloc or the Tories on every confidence motion. The Tories would be well p!ssed off in a situation like this, so would be unlikely to work with the coalition, which would leave the Bloc as the kingmakers.

This coalition would be bad news for Canadian Federalism. Not only would the Bloc have a disproportionate amount of power, but pushing the Conservatives out like this would also fan the flames of Western alienation.

The whole "GTA circling the wagons" thing is kind of funny in a way, if they keep it up maybe we'll start to hear slogans like "The GTA wants in" soon!

Like it or not, the Conservatives may well come back next time, perhaps even with a majority if they don't screw up too badly. The biggest thing holding the Conservatives back last time was the fear of the unknown "scary extremists", if they can govern this time without scaring off mainstream voters in Central and Eastern Canada, they may well stick around for a while, even if the folks on http://www.rabble.ca/ continue to find them scary and extreme.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Kosh said:


> This phrase is really starting to annoy me. For some reason, people don't think people are entitled to their work benefits. For example, the mint guy, who did nothing wrong (and they use as an example of this), other than make some deal with Tim Horton's to distribute the new coins, is fired. And you don't think he's entitled to his severance, and pension? This is just WRONG. People work hard for their pensions and benefits, just like the private sector. What benefits are in their contracts are what they are entitled to and there is nothing wrong with that. That'd be like telling me that after 15 years of work I'm not entitled to my benefits (entitilements). Let's take your pension and other benefits away and see how you like it.
> 
> Correction: he resigned and was not fired.


I am glad you picked up on the obvious however many people believe David Dingwall is/was a crook. Think what the Conservatives on a Parliamentary Committee were able to put in the minds of people.

What would a Conservative appointee say today if the roles were reversed? Even the Nutt off the Wet Coast sometimes, err, once in a long while, errrr from time to time ahhh you know what I mean  speaks truth.

I included the warning in my rant reality cannot be used as a gage because of spin.

But much of it is just distraction, watch carefully is my warning.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> Like it or not, the Conservatives may well come back next time, perhaps even with a majority if they don't screw up too badly. The biggest thing holding the Conservatives back last time was the fear of the unknown "scary extremists", if they can govern this time without scaring off mainstream voters in Central and Eastern Canada, they may well stick around for a while, even if the folks on http://www.rabble.ca/ continue to find them scary and extreme.


I predict this will be Harper's strategy. He will continue the pretence that he's a moderate conservative and will continue to tell some of the loose cannons on his side to zip it, so a majority can be achieved. If the Conservatives don't make any major gaffes, the media will be gushing about what a good measured job Harper has done, priming the pump for a Con majority. They will work to increase their seats in Quebec, a la Muldoon, which is probably quite doable if they play their cards right. The corporate elites who rallied around the Libs will now abandon them, if they haven't already. Power attracts money and money attracts power, it was ever thus. At this point I would say the chances of a future Con majority are actually quite good, since I have little faith that most of the public will understand the game being played.

Some of Harper's play-acting at being a moderate may actually rub off on the government's members, but my gut and history tells me that Harper and his back-room cronies such as neo-con Tom Flanagan, have not "evolved", nor will they ever. Prime Minister Harper is the same guy as NCC director Harper. He's simply playing out his strategy. His version of "compassionate" conservatism, will be abandoned as soon as the objective is reached, as was the case with his ideological mentors, the US Republicans.

It's the same game that was played in the US, it's just that Harper has to be a bit more clever and subtle to play it here.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Let's see:

Stockwell Day, in charge of anti-terrorism, RCMP, CSIS.

Count to 5 and he will embarrass Harper beyond measure--who else could make Dan Quayle look like Albert Einstein?

Let's see how this "waiting game" goes.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I predict this will be Harper's strategy...


Exactly!


GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ...His version of "compassionate" conservatism, will be abandoned as soon as the objective is reached, as was the case with his ideological mentors, the US Republicans.


If this happens he will most likely be gone in the very next election after winning his majority, as these sort of policies probably won't sit well with most Canadians.

If he continues to govern with moderate, right of centre policies he could well be in it for the long haul. It will take a few years for the Liberals to rebuild and sort out their internal divisions, and my sense is most of the electorate is somewhat to the right of Judy Rebick and Buzz Hargrove.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

To be totally honest, I am somewhat embarrassed by the appointment of a turncoat and a parachuted in, unelected, party hack to the cabinet when he had such an abundance of Conservative talent to choose from.

It is not the brightest thing Harper ever did and I fear it will come back to haunt him big time.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> To be totally honest, I am somewhat embarrassed by the appointment of a turncoat and a parachuted in, unelected, party hack to the cabinet when he had such an abundance of Conservative talent to choose from.
> 
> It is not the brightest thing Harper ever did and I fear it will come back to haunt him big time.


Sinc,

You are forgetting the grand strategy. Extremists like ourselves have to keep quiet until such time as we win a majority government. In the meantime, we have to hide our true agendas. Our time will come.

Shhhhhhh.......


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Sinc,
> 
> You are forgetting the grand strategy. Extremists like ourselves have to keep quiet until such time as we win a majority government. In the meantime, we have to hide our true agendas. Our time will come.
> 
> Shhhhhhh.......


IKNEWITIKNEWITIKNEWITIKNEWITIKNEWITIKNEWITIKNEWIT!

MOOOOOOOOOOM! VANDAVE AND SINC HAVE SECRET AGENDAS!

MAKE THEM STOP!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> IKNEWITIKNEWITIKNEWITIKNEWITIKNEWITIKNEWITIKNEWIT!
> 
> MOOOOOOOOOOM! VANDAVE AND SINC HAVE SECRET AGENDAS!
> 
> MAKE THEM STOP!


Leftila, Communista, stop talking about your brothers that way! You know full well that political forces will maintain minimum levels of corruption, scandal and lies regardless of the party in power. Now everybody, come and have your pork dinner.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Beej said:


> Leftila, Communista, stop talking about your brothers that way! You know full well that political forces will maintain minimum levels of corruption, scandal and lies regardless of the party in power. Now everybody, come and have your pork dinner.


But, but... Cleaning Up Ottawa!

But, but... Accountability!

But, but... Integrity!

But, but... Values!

:yikes: :-(


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh I think his Ontario hopes are dashed with the choice of appointment of the Finance Minister and reneging on the negotiated childcare deal with the provinces.

His best bet for new seats are in Quebec - Duceppes nightmare.

The floor cross especially given the Cons came in third in the riding will indeed come back to haunt I should suspect.
Politically it's a time bomb.

In realpolitik it's not a bad move to shown centrist and inclusive nature of the cabinet and get some experience in place for a key role for BC in the Olympic effort. In practical terms a reasonable political move.

In the era of supposed political reform and given the Cons own 'whore" wording....it reeks of hypocrisy and revenge.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> But, but... Cleaning Up Ottawa!
> 
> But, but... Accountability!
> 
> ...


No buts! If you don't eat your pork, I'm sure Corporatasia will.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Beej said:


> No buts! If you don't eat your pork, I'm sure Corporatasia will.


But we're at WAR with Corporatasia! We have ALWAYS been at war with Corporatasia!

tptptptp


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Don't make me take my belt off!

No really, my pants will fall down. Please don't make me take my belt off.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> If he continues to govern with moderate, right of centre policies he could well be in it for the long haul. It will take a few years for the Liberals to rebuild and sort out their internal divisions, and my sense is most of the electorate is somewhat to the right of Judy Rebick and Buzz Hargrove.


My sense is that a significantly large portion of the electorate aren't too sure what left or right means or where they would stand on most issues if they didn't have sound bites from the media to tell them that people like Buzz and Judy are the devil. Most have been successfully convinced that it's always in their best interest to side with policies that are the most beneficial to <1% of the wealthiest Canadians, who own most of the media and control all of the largest corps. The media has a lot to do with crafting the perception of who the winners and losers are in political battles and unfortunately many vote on that basis, rather than trying to figure out for themselves who really represents their interests.

The <1% has rallied around the Libs in the past, because they were convinced that Chretien/Martin would most smoothly protect their interests. I believe they have already shifted their allegiance to Harper's boys, no doubt with the proviso that he doesn't cause the same level of blowback that Bush has. I think Harper's smarter than Bush's crew.

If you don't believe that Canadians will accept an overtly neo-conservative agenda you haven't seen what Campbell has done in BC since 2001. Granted there was a significant backlash against him, taking his popular vote support from 57% in 2001, when he ran the same "I am a moderate conservative" ruse as Harper, to mid-40% levels, enough to maintain a majority government, but the slashing and privatizing continues on. What I think most Canadians won't accept is an overtly social conservative agenda, because thankfully most have thought a bit more about that here, as opposed to the US. Both Campbell and Harper have recognized this, even though some of their more knuckle-dragging colleagues haven't got the message yet.

I think that if packaged right and repeated constantly in the media they will even be able to overcome our legendary fabled attachment to public health care. It's already starting to work as you hear more than ever before the talking points offered by its opponents being unquestioningly repeated by average Canadians. They've been chipping away at it since Mulroney, through Chretien, who really got the ball rolling by stealthily underfunding it through his finance Minister, Paul Martin. Soon Harper will attempt to drive a stake through its heart, if he can get his majority. 

In case anyone has forgotten, Harper was head of the National Citizen's Coalition, a lobby group set up by a pissed off wealthy doctor in the late '60s with the express mandate of fighting that new-fangled commie universal health care. Harper holds the NCC's Medal of Freedom. The night he received it he declared universality a dead concept. Harper didn't go from being a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of medicare to someone who will attempt to fix it. Unless by fixing it, one means pulling the plug on it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mac Yak said:


> But we're at WAR with Corporatasia! We have ALWAYS been at war with Corporatasia!
> 
> tptptptp


Perhaps, but we NEVER attack when they toss us a pay cheque.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> My sense is that a significantly large portion of the electorate aren't too sure what left or right means or where they would stand on most issues if they didn't have sound bites from the media to tell them that people like Buzz and Judy are the devil. Most have been successfully convinced that it's always in their best interest to side with policies that are the most beneficial to <1% of the wealthiest Canadians, who own most of the media and control all of the largest corps.
> ...
> If you don't believe that Canadians will accept an overtly neo-conservative agenda you haven't seen what Campbell has done in BC since 2001.


Canadians for decades have not chosen the federal NDP. This isn't some grand misunderstanding. They don't represent what most Canadians want, as has been proven again and again. Some 'media problem' claims, such as Reform/Alliance/Conservatives used to use misses the point: most people don't want those policies just like most don't won't socially conservative policies -- it's not the media or some widespread mistake. You seem to imply that people have been hoodwinked in some way to not want what's REALLY in their own interest. Do you actually believe that?
...
How do you define 'neo-con agenda' such that Campbell has one? I asked this earlier and posted the wikipedia definition as a starting point for discussion. 

Tax cuts and privatisation; is that neocon? Aside: deficit -- look at the B.C. NDP record on that before you include it on the list. If tax cuts and privatisation are neocon, what are tax hikes and nationalization? How about 'status quo' in any given area? Relative things like changing the existing level of privatisation and taxes don't define an ideology. Labelling what you don't like as neocon is just playing the NDP political game for them...free advertising for their spin.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Perhaps, but we NEVER attack when they toss us a pay cheque.


Oh, Corporatasia is tossing out paycheques now? How come nobody told me? Where do I get one?

Oh, I see, they don't just _GIVE_ me the money, I have to work for that paycheque, darn, I knew there was a catch. So I guess it's a fair deal then?

Oh and Corporatasia is doing as much as possible by arm-twisting its paid minions in legislatures to reduce the size of those paycheques so they can make as much profit from my work as they make from their workers in 3rd World countries? And trying as hard as they can to have workplace safety standards reduced? And lobbying for the chance to pollute more, while paying less tax? Hey, this Corporatasia fellow isn't real nice. 

Oh, I understand, law of the jungle and all that. It's real scary for that <1% to risk all their hard earned capital just to make jobs for people like me. OK, I don't blame them, then.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Oh, Corporatasia is tossing out paycheques now? How come nobody told me? Where do I get one?
> 
> Oh, I see, they don't just _GIVE_ me the money, I have to work for that paycheque, darn, I knew there was a catch. So I guess it's a fair deal then?
> 
> ...


Yep, small business pays people just great with a lot of good benefits...oh no, wait, that's Corportasia! Workplace safety standards lax with your local contractor? Must be Corporatasia's fault somehow. :lmao: 

Really, some businesses, small and large, are less reputable than others. Some people are less reputable than others. What a coincidence.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Now you guys are gettin' it.


----------



## audiodan (Sep 26, 2005)

I think that Prime Mini-Ster is the best! (Yes I name all of my Apple products!)


----------



## blue sky (Oct 24, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> My sense is that a significantly large portion of the electorate aren't too sure what left or right means ... Most have been successfully convinced that it's always in their best interest to side with policies that are the most beneficial to <1% of the wealthiest Canadians.... The media has a lot to do with crafting the perception of who the winners and losers are in political battles....


Thinking is hard work. and it takes time away from beer and hockey. 




GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ... I think Harper's smarter than Bush's crew.
> 
> ... What I think most Canadians won't accept is an overtly social conservative agenda, because thankfully most have thought a bit more about that here, as opposed to the US. Both Campbell and Harper have recognized this, even though some of their more knuckle-dragging colleagues haven't got the message yet.
> 
> I think that if packaged right and repeated constantly .. attachment to public health care. It's already starting to work .... Harper will attempt to drive a stake through its heart, if he can get his majority.


Harper will have plenty of assistance from Mr. Klein, as well as his new MoH, Tony 'I won with overwhelming support' Clement.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> In case anyone has forgotten, Harper was head of the National Citizen's Coalition, a lobby group set up by a pissed off wealthy doctor in the late '60s with the express mandate of fighting that new-fangled commie universal health care. Harper holds the NCC's Medal of Freedom. The night he received it he declared universality a dead concept. Harper didn't go from being a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of medicare to someone who will attempt to fix it. Unless by fixing it, one means pulling the plug on it.


Mr. Harper and his protegés have demonstrated great patience. In fact, the theme of patience was quite prevalent in one of his speeches prior to taking over the leadership. They will look to govern in a moderate manner for the "next two years" (attributed to Mr. 'Bi' Emerson). Through careful stewardship, the Cons will help the electorate fall asleep over the next while, laying the groundwork for their ultimate triumph of a majority government. Who knows, with Stocky in charge of Public Safety, they might even manage some sort of 'incident' which helps them frighten the populace into viewing the Cons as the only Saviour of our God-blessed country.

My immediate concern is not with Mr. Emerson, or even Mr. Flaherty or Clement. While I am sure that Mr. Flaherty will be able to quickly turn a surplus into a deficit through selective adjustment of the tax system and Mr. Clement will find a way to assist private health care to reach its full potential, the appointment of Mr. Fortier to Minister of Public Works raises questions. When not subjected to careful ongoing scrutiny, especially through one of the few avenues open to question government activities (Question Period, for what it is worth), I wonder why he was given such a relatively important posting and placed out of harm's way in the Senate. 

If Mr. Fortier's appointment was solely to have him in the government and the Cabinet, surely an appointment as, say, Minister of Sport, would have accomplished the same goal. Public Works is the infrastructure behind all the government departments ("Public Works and Government Services Canada is the engine that powers the Government of Canada. We support the daily operations of nearly 140 federal departments and agencies" - http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/text/generic/about-e.html). 

Curious....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

blue sky said:


> If Mr. Fortier's appointment was solely to have him in the government and the Cabinet, surely an appointment as, say, Minister of Sport, would have accomplished the same goal.
> ...
> Curious....


Harper is a politician. Politicians, regardless of what they claim in opposition or during campaigns, practice patronage and grandstanding. There may be a few 'rebels', but they aren't leadership material. Getting leadership takes support, and support takes patronage. Balance is returned to the farce.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Canadians for decades have not chosen the federal NDP. This isn't some grand misunderstanding. They don't represent what most Canadians want, as has been proven again and again. Some 'media problem' claims, such as Reform/Alliance/Conservatives used to use misses the point: most people don't want those policies just like most don't won't socially conservative policies -- it's not the media or some widespread mistake. You seem to imply that people have been hoodwinked in some way to not want what's REALLY in their own interest. Do you actually believe that?


As I said in my post, I think significantly large number of people don't have much idea about why they think the NDP or more traditionally left wing ideas are bad or that "free-market" ideas are good. They rely on others to do their thinking for them. I can only guess, based on my experiences and things that I've read how large that group might be. I didn't say that those people might necessarily vote NDP, who knows maybe they'd vote Green.

What I was trying to say is that policies that best serve the interests of <1% of the population who control the lion's share of the world's wealth are what I see and hear being promoted most vociferously in the media in general. The fact that the majority of the world's media is owned by that same group is an interesting co-incidence, n'est pas? Do you really believe that most of those who own the world give a damn about fairness and balance in reporting or will not work 24/7 in every way possible to see that their position and wealth continues to be enhanced. If it means supporting Martin, Harper, Layton, Bush or Blair, it really matters little, as long as the results are favourable. Really left and right don't mean much, only Them That Has and everyone else. Many of us can do fine by serving Them That Has and many of us therefore don't want to see anything threaten the boss either. 



Beej said:


> How do you define 'neo-con agenda' such that Campbell has one? I asked this earlier and posted the wikipedia definition as a starting point for discussion.


Since the definition of the word neo-conservative is subject to much controversy and debate, how about I substitute free-market conservative (as opposed to social conservative)?



Beej said:


> Tax cuts and privatisation; is that neocon? Aside: deficit -- look at the B.C. NDP record on that before you include it on the list. If tax cuts and privatisation are neocon, what are tax hikes and nationalization? How about 'status quo' in any given area? Relative things like changing the existing level of privatisation and taxes don't define an ideology. Labelling what you don't like as neocon is just playing the NDP political game for them...free advertising for their spin.


Tax cuts - no. I wish I was paying the same level of tax relative to my meagre wealth that the top <1% was paying. I'd gladly send in my $20 bucks a year. Campbell's first action, 2 minutes into his first mandate in 2001 was to give a massive tax break that disproportionately benefited the top income earners. I had enough after subtracting his new user fees, to buy a pizza. Yahoo.

Never mind nationalization, how about just not selling off the things that already belong to the public, built and paid for by generations of citizens, sold usually at bargain prices, without ever getting the consent of those who paid for it? Campbell for one, never mentioned that he intended on embarking on a program of privatization. Hey if some lefty politician started nationalizing things I would expect him to have gotten permission first. Strangely enough, much of what Campbell set his sights on privatizing was first nationalized by W.A.C. Bennett, famed Social Credit Premier of BC and no lefty. Back to left and right again. But in those days, Them That Has, thought that those nationalizations were a good idea.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I'd love to continue what looks to be a rollicking discussion Beej, et al, but my slave-driving boss*** makes me work nights, if I spend half the afternoon posting on ehMac.




***Ummm, that'd be Me, Myself and I, Inc.

PS, the guy that works for me is a lazy, shiftless, commie, who'd rather promote his Marxist theories on the internet than do some soul-cleansing work.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As I said in my post, I think significantly large number of people don't have much idea about why they think the NDP or more traditionally left wing ideas are bad or that "free-market" ideas are good.
> ...
> What I was trying to say is that policies that best serve the interests of <1% of the population who control the lion's share of the world's wealth are what I see and hear being promoted most vociferously in the media in general.
> ...
> ...


From what I've seen, most have an anti-corporate point of view without much idea why. But that's just me. More likely, the natural 'space' seems to be distrustful of big things, like corporations and government, that they have no appreciable say in. It's not left, right, markets or socialism. Big is not personal. People naturally like personal interaction (except on Sunday evening, that's Beej's time!).
...
This is one of those things where the gulf between our ideas is so vast, it's not worth going further into.
...
Free-market conservative sounds much more accurate than neocon.
...
Unlikely. The top 10% of earners pay 50% of federal income tax. While it is possible the top 1% pay next to nothing, it's highly unlikely. More of popularist disdain for the wealthy. Quite possibly spread by anecdotes. For example, rich fat cat ABC didn't pay any tax in 2001, but quite likely he sustained huge stock losses so looking at the one year is just unreasonable. But, like I said, not impossible, I've not seen data on the top 1%. Do you have data (not anecdotes) to backup the statement?
...
Possibly a referendum before selling major public assets (what major assets did he sell?). There would need to be a value cut-off otherwise the referendum cost would swamp out any possible gains...sort of like a shareholder vote on a takeover bid and their poison pills. :lmao: 

Say a value of at least 50x the cost of the referendum? I would prefer that government just govern and people choose every four years, but if it really made most people feel better, sure.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'd love to continue what looks to be a rollicking discussion Beej, et al, but my slave-driving boss*** makes me work nights, if I spend half the afternoon posting on ehMac.
> ...
> ***Ummm, that'd be Me, Myself and I, Inc.
> 
> PS, the guy that works for me is a lazy, shiftless, commie, who'd rather promote his Marxist theories on the internet than do some soul-cleansing work.


I'm lazy and shiftless, but capitalist (with some vicious socialist streaks). I consider work abhorent to my couch-warming natural state, but capitalism the only means to pay for the room around the couch, and a couch without a 2x4 rammed up my *ahem* (reminder to self: go couch-shopping). My abilities are great, but my 'needs' are greater.

I'm going to tell your boss, the capitalist by definition, about his Marxist worker who is probably agitating for unionization to give the means of production to the workers and all...you know the drill. 

Here's a little something to warm your heart (or maybe chill you to the bones) for your evening of work:

Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by strictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its most lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their natural punishment, by maintaining peace, by defending property, by diminishing the price of law, and by observing strict economy in every department of the state. Let the Government do this: the People will assuredly do the rest.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> To be totally honest, I am somewhat embarrassed by the appointment of a turncoat and a parachuted in, unelected, party hack to the cabinet when he had such an abundance of Conservative talent to choose from.


Maybe he didn't have such an abundance of Conservative talent to choose from. After all, if he had to appoint Stockwell Day, how much lower do you want to go?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If you don't believe that Canadians will accept an overtly neo-conservative agenda you haven't seen what Campbell has done in BC since 2001. Granted there was a significant backlash against him, taking his popular vote support from 57% in 2001, when he ran the same "I am a moderate conservative" ruse as Harper, to mid-40% levels, enough to maintain a majority government, but the slashing and privatizing continues on.


I believe that when Campbell got 57% of the popular vote it was not due to the appeal of his "I am a moderate conservative" platform, but rather a backlash against the NDP government, who were *very* unpopular by then.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I escaped from my slave-driving "Boss" for a minute. After he eats dinner he gets quite stupid and nods off dreaming about his gold or something. If I type quietly he won't wake up. 

I'm spending a very enjoyable hour listening to right-wing "journalist" Michael Smyth's call-in show on CKNW, while I work. He roasting the hell out of Emerson and he's got some Conservative apologist on air who's simply saying "I just don't know."

Some great lines being said by the caller. "The shortest honeymoon, in the history of Canadian politics." "Whoever thought that David Emerson could make Belinda Stronach look thoughtful." "Stephen Harper's self-declared worst nightmare, just turned into Stephen Harper's wet dream." Well, maybe not, if this story doesn't fade away. He might be going back to being worst nightmare, but not in the manner intended.

And the news is out that the Vancouver-Kingsway riding association is demanding the $96,000 in Liberal party election donations be returned. Also a number of people are going to be running petitions in the riding, guaranteed to get more signatures than the number of votes he got. The NDP plans to re-introduce their bill in the House, that 40 Cons voted for last year, that requires those crossing the floor to resign and run again. I wonder what would happen if it got support from the Libs and the Bloc and passed. I don't think this is fading away and could very well "metastasize", as Andrew Coyne puts it.

As I said yesterday, I had no idea it would be so much fun having Harper as PM. Keep the entertainment going, guys. 

Oh cripes, I better go back to work. My capitalist-scum "Boss" looks to be waking up.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> I believe that when Campbell got 57% of the popular vote it was not due to the appeal of his "I am a moderate conservative" platform, but rather a backlash against the NDP government, who were *very* unpopular by then.


The backlash over the taint of a phoney scandal, later proven to be false was one factor, but the moderate conservative stance is what got a sizeable chunk of the swing voters to go for him because they told themselves he wouldn't be so bad. He never mentioned the aggressive program he was about to embark on. The same tactic padded Harper's total in the wake of Lib unpopularity.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

GA...you DO realise that you are a very small part of a rapidly dying breed, don't you? 

Socilaisim is either dead or dying in almost ALL of the modern societies, these days. It has a smallish half-life in the repressed and desperately poor countries....but even THAT will change with time. 

Capitalism is here to stay. Socialism is a dead duck. This is an historical fact.

Try to deal with it...okay?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> GA...you DO realise that you are a very small part of a rapidly dying breed, don't you?
> 
> Socilaisim is either dead or dying in almost ALL of the modern societies, these days. It has a smallish half-life in the repressed and desperately poor countries....but even THAT will change with time.
> 
> ...


Nutt, you do realize that your commentary is irrelevant to anyone with more than a few operating brain cells, don't you? 

Try to deal with it...okay? 

Hey just kidding, old pal, keep the entertainment coming. :lmao:


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Tories grumbling over cabinet:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060207.wcabinet0204/BNStory/Front

Myron Thompson whom they also quote as "Ms. Thompson" (typo I'm sure... ) the MP for Wild Rose in Alberta... "dual citizenship" Canadian/American is concerned he will receive "backlash" from his constituents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Thompson

Impressive profile...  

This is what the Conservatives think of the people in Vancouver-Kingsway who are voicing their concern:



> Party stalwart John Reynolds first approached Emerson the day after the election, and was crowing about his talented recruit.
> 
> He dismissed complaints in Mr. Emerson's riding as sour grapes.
> 
> “I'm sure a great percentage of the NDP people in his riding are yelling and screaming today. But everybody else is happy,” MR. Reynolds said.


Only the NDP people huh? None of those who voted Liberal are unhappy? Somehow I just don't quite believe that... 

The article also addresses Michael ("I didn't want to run in the election") Fortier...

This *is* going to get entertaining... no doubt...


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Capitalism is here to stay. Socialism is a dead duck. This is an historical fact.
> 
> Try to deal with it...okay?


And it's totally OK if the Cons carry on with Politics As Usual despite their pledge to "clean up Ottawa" and make it "more accountable." It's OK to be a bunch of deceitful bastards, then turn right around and keep on keeping on with the back-room deals and dubious alliances they vilified the previous government for. The kind of activities they promised to eliminate. Or something.

The utter undemocratic garbage of Emerson and Fortier is fine and good for the country -- Val Meredith said so -- as long as they don't take MacNutt's money. Remember that, everyone! See that money over there on the public pile? It's MacNutt's. Don't you dare touch it! Otherwise he'll scream and scream and stamp his little feet. Or something.

That "Cons" monicker is becoming more and more appropriate every day. They sure "Con"ned the people of Vancouver-Kingsway. Cue the next Con Job in 3, 2, 1....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mac Yak said:


> And it's totally OK if the Cons carry on with Politics As Usual despite their pledge to "clean up Ottawa" and make it "more accountable." It's OK to be a bunch of deceitful bastards, then turn right around and keep on keeping on with the back-room deals and dubious alliances they vilified the previous government for. The kind of activities they promised to eliminate. Or something.


Well if you are a Con and you speak too loudly about principles, they will give you a plum job...


> Ontario Tory MP Helena Guergis was set to issue a press release yesterday morning reaffirming her support for the anti-crossing legislation.
> 
> However, Mr. Harper made her parliamentary secretary to Mr. Emerson yesterday afternoon, and the press release was not issued.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060208.TORIES08/TPStory/National


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The heat is on.....



> *Tory MPs riled by Harper's outsiders
> 'This is shocking. It's just unbelievable. ... We campaigned against this kind of stuff'*
> JEFF SALLOT AND BILL CURRY
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060207.wcabinet0204/BNStory/Front

••••

I suspect is was uninitentional but the title of this thread continually makes me think of the *The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari*










an early horror film..........the association is starting to get stronger.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> I suspect is was uninitentional but the title of this thread continually makes me think of the *The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari*


Heh heh. Same here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You know considering the 3rd place finish for the Cons I'd say the Liberal Riding association has a pretty fine civil suit for that $100k plus damages.
••••


> *Harper.......the horror, the horror*..coming soon to a parli....err theatre near you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cue: Ride of the Valkyries.....

Nomination Best Actor.....Steven ( I fooled them all even my own party ) Harper

other nominations......???


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I suspect is was uninitentional but the title of this thread continually makes me think of the *The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


MacDoc, I was originally going to label the thread "The Cabinet of Doctor Calgary," but I felt that title was more obscure, more ambiguous and less provocative than "Stephen Harper, Boy Prime Minister." Besides, our Prime Minister is a "Master" of Economics... not a doctor


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah so it was intentional- very good :clap:


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I suspect is was uninitentional but the title of this thread continually makes me think of the *The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari*


Sounds like the beginning of "GTA Alienation" to me -- I wonder when we'll see a letter calling for a "firewall" around the GTA


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Don't forget Montreal and Vancouver - the last bastions of Freedom....


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

What's with the Globe and Mail articles? The one I posted a link to yesterday and all others here now require that I register to view them... keeping track of things now are they?


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> Sounds like the beginning of "GTA Alienation" to me -- I wonder when we'll see a letter calling for a "firewall" around the GTA


I was thinking more along this line:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dreambird you need to register for the additional aritcle access.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Yes... thanks MacDoc... I registered. It just took me a bit by surprise as last night I didn't need to do that so it's apparently a new thing.

I prefer it to the ******* rags here in Calgary...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> Mr. Harper reportedly explained at length why Mr. Emerson, a Vancouver MP, and Mr. Fortier, a Montreal lawyer, are needed. The Conservatives failed to win seats in either city on Jan. 23. Mr. Harper made Mr. Emerson Minister of International Trade. Mr. Fortier is Public Works Minister, and will sit in the Senate and run in the next general election, Mr. Harper said.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060208.TORIES08/TPStory/National

You can't *win* a seat so you just grab a couple any way you can... yup, yup... Harper is living down to the reputation I know him for.

Maybe some Albertans will remove their Conservative blinders now however I doubt it...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

What about the Ethics Commissioner here, I haven't seen any talk of that. In the Grewal affair it came out that the rule was that the Government couldn't offer and inducement to get someone to cross. When Harper or Reynolds phoned Emerson the very next morning after the election are they going to say that they offered nothing? At any rate, they say hey contacted him, offer or not. Isn't that against the rules?

Does anyone seriously think Emerson would have moved to the Cons without a Cabinet appointment? David Emerson pretty much admits it himself when he excuses his move with the reason that he thought he would be more effective for Vancouver if he was in Cabinet. So he was offered an inducement. Charges coming?

The radio roasting continues today. Lots of Con supporters are P O'd as well. This is snowballing quite nicely. Pardon me for experiencing more schadenfreude.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Just did a quick Google News search and found out that yesterday the group Democracy Watch filed complaints with the Ethics Commissioner. I think Emerson and Harper are now going to have to publicly change their stories if they want to avoid a breach of the rules. 

Anyone got tapes. Where's that dang Gurmant when you need him.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

From yesterday's Vancouver Province:


> David Emerson, who promised as a re-elected Liberal MP to be Stephen Harper's "worst nightmare," secretly met Harper last week to talk about changing teams.
> 
> Emerson met Harper in an Ottawa hotel. The meeting was the result of talks, initiated by the Tories, to get Emerson, elected Liberal in Vancouver Kings-way, to abandon his party.
> 
> ...


And from last June's Toronto Star, John Reynolds, in the wake of the Grewal affair, filed complaints with two provincial law societies, against Ujjal Dosanjh, Tim Murphy and David Petersen, alleging that they had violated Section 119(1) of the Criminal Code, which prohibits people from offering members of Parliament ``valuable consideration, office, place or employment” to influence their work in any way. Reynolds wasn't worried about this when he offered his inducement to Emerson.

John Reynolds doesn't seem to be particularly worried about any of his parties stances or whether it's a problem to break them. He accepted a position recently as a lobbyist fresh after leaving Parliament. Of course the Cons plan to table a bill to ban exactly that isn't quite law yet, so may as well get into that trough while the gettin's good, eh?

As this blogger said:


> How can a Tory MP one day accuse three Liberal lawyers/officials of professional [mis]conduct and a criminal act, then turn around later, do the same thing and publicly admit to it. Figure that one out, will you?


Man, I thought it wouldn't take long for the Cons to get down and dirty as Government, but they're even exceeding my own cynical expectations. Pass the pork, will ya? 

Hey ehMac lefties - is this fun or what?? Who knew I was going to enjoy the barrel of fish that is this Harper government?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Don't forget Montreal and Vancouver - the last bastions of Freedom....


But Montreal and Vancouver are represented in the Cabinet now!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> I was thinking more along this line:


As in "Prepare to be assimilated -- resistance is futile"?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> As in "Prepare to be assimilated -- resistance is futile"?


Yup... this would be the line that's been shoved down my throat here.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Yup... this would be the line that's been shoved down my throat here.


I feel that way about downtown Ottawa politics.  
At least the country is diverse. Makes things interesting.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Yes... well thank the powers that be for diversity... that's my main beef in Alberta... a lack of diversity...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Cynicism and Hypocrisy and good old lying... that's the Cons...

Fortier said: "People who change parties right in the middle of a Parliament... I find it inadmissible. If they can't sit as an independent and go for another, then they have to face the electorate." 
Ironic since Fortier took a bad door into cabinet (Senate patronage and all). He did not run (maybe because it's sure he would of loss). Fortier and Emerson; only the tip of the iceberg....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> 'Senator for Montreal' represents rural Quebec
> 
> Arcane rule bases Fortier in area along Vermont border
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=86e028c8-be91-4d83-9b7a-449ba9d6b242

Go Harper - I mean this is almost a tragic farce....

And given the Cons disrespect for the voters and hopes that they have short memories - Michel Fortier is now saying "greater Montreal" instead of Montreal....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=86e028c8-be91-4d83-9b7a-449ba9d6b242
> 
> Go Harper - I mean this is almost a tragic farce....
> 
> And given the Cons disrespect for the voters and hopes that they have short memories - Michel Fortier is now saying "greater Montreal" instead of Montreal....



subscription required to view article


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

www.bugmenot.com


----------

