# The turncoat speaks...



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Finally that execrable sack of B.S. showed one of his faces on the local CTV news affiliate here, basically saying it was "his decision" to kick the democratic process in the crotch -- my characterization, of course -- and cross the floor. "No" to a byelection, "no" to giving any money back that was raised in the campaign. Therefore, a Minister of the Crown apparently thinks it's totally OK to pull what many are saying is a "bait and switch" to retain power. 

A petition has started online to demand the turncoat's recall here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/RDE/

The decision should be up to the people in his constituency, not in his hands.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

signed! thanks


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

darkscot said:


> signed! thanks


Darkscot, yours is one of -- at this writing -- 1820 signatures on the petition. Signees also have the option of comment. As you can imagine, David Emerstunt is about as popular there as a Danish cartoonist in Syria.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Done! Thank-you...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

... and then... my signature got rejected...  

I am a "born in this country Canadian"... I gave my real proper name and email so...  

Someone (local that I know) said that in Alberta if you don't vote Conservative your vote doesn't count... but this is ridiculous!


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

signed, almost 2000 signatures...I wonder if this will get some attention


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

A lot of signatures have gotten rejected looks like... 

I emailed them to ask why... also sent an email to my MP and voiced my opinion re: Emerson there.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Perhaps only people who live in the constituency are able to sign a recall petition for their MP?

Recall legislation in BC works that way.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

That was my first thought however when you hit the button to sign the petition it states:

"Eligible signatories:	all Canadians"


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Dreambird:

For what it's worth, the petition accepted my signature. I confirmed it myself this morning. I do see, as you said, that they have several "rejected" signatures. Have you received a response to your email asking why yours wasn't accepted? I'm interested to find out what they tell you.

P.S. The petition is over 4,000 signatures now -- although they may be "counting" the rejected signatures in that number.


----------



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

Since I believe in the statement "The decision should be up to the people in his constituency, not in his hands", I signed the petition.


----------



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

"Your signature number for this petition is 4147" as of two minutes ago.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Since I believe in the statement "The decision should be up to the people in his constituency, not in his hands", I signed the petition.


I lived in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding for two years and I have friends in the area, so I feel like I have a personal stake in this. But what I really want to say is that I believe democracy should not be subverted in this way, no matter where it happens. In that way, I think we all have a personal stake in this.

Mmmmmm.... stake....


----------



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

Mac Yak, what might you have felt if he decided to sit as an independent?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Here's an amusing site
http://www.recalldavidemerson.com/




> Softwood may be too hot to handle for Emerson
> Conservatives defending the decision to take the newly minted Conservative are arguing that Emerson, a former executive with Canfor, will help settle the softwood lumber dispute with the U.S.
> 
> However, on November 11, 2004, Emerson signed a public declaration of recusal with the ethics commissioner's office forbidding himself from being involved in matters that directly involve Canfor.


http://politicswatch.com/emerson-feb8-2006.htm



> TORONTO -- The Liberals had the template of a deal with the U.S. on the softwood lumber dispute, but put it on hold during the election that saw the party's defeat, a Toronto newspaper reported today.
> 
> Objections to the terms were led by David Emerson, the Liberal minister from B.C. under fire for defecting to the Conservatives, the newspaper said today.
> 
> ...


http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/02/09/1432831-sun.html



> Softwood truce a 'top' priority, Emerson says
> 
> Canada's new International Trade Minister David Emerson says settling the $8-billion softwood lumber dispute "is one of my top priorities" and he'll be talking to the provinces shortly on how to move forward to resolve it.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060209.RSOFTWOOD09/TPStory/Business


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Mac Yak, what might you have felt if he decided to sit as an independent?


It would never have come to that point. He specifically said he did this to "best serve the people of my constituency, and the best place to do that is in cabinet." I don't think any Prime Minister is interested in having an Independent in cabinet... how would they bring that minister "in line" with the PM's wishes? Then they'd have to resign from the portfolio, or be shuffled. Where would that leave Emerson then? On the outside, without a portfolio, and in far less of a position to do anything for his constituents. Somehow, I don't picture David Emerson giving up power in favour of principle, do you?  

Chuck Cadman notwithstanding, Independents just don't have much clout in the Canadian parliamentary system. I'm betting Emerson knows this. My take on it is that he would rather go back to the private sector rather than be a maverick MP railing from the outside. 

We already know his infamous declaration on Election Night -- "I'm going to be Stephen Harper's worst nightmare" -- was a load of hooey. Unless he actually said "wurst nightmare," in which case it seems to be a little too late now to warn the Boy PM about eating spicy German sausage before bedtime.

XX)


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Don't like it complain to the man himself! I did (after signing the petition).


> Contact Information for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
> 
> Email Address
> [email protected]
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home



> Did Emerson block deal?
> Feb. 9, 2006. 10:37 AM
> JAMES TRAVERS
> NATIONAL AFFAIRS COLUMNIST
> ...


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

martman said:


> Don't like it complain to the man himself! I did (after signing the petition).


I'm thinking we'd all love to see the response to your letter. Post it when you get it, would'ja please? Thanks!


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Mac Yak said:


> Dreambird:
> 
> For what it's worth, the petition accepted my signature. I confirmed it myself this morning. I do see, as you said, that they have several "rejected" signatures. Have you received a response to your email asking why yours wasn't accepted? I'm interested to find out what they tell you.
> 
> P.S. The petition is over 4,000 signatures now -- although they may be "counting" the rejected signatures in that number.


The only thing I've got is an email confirming that I voted and where my name is on the list so it's confusing at best. The email would suggest my vote is valid and yet on the site it says "signature rejected". Maybe a glitch on their part? 

No answer to my email inquiring about it as yet... I'm curious myself...  

Not a really big deal I suppose just strange... in any case I needed to write my MP on another matter so I added in there that IMO Emerson should be required to run in a by-election.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home


Thanks for that column. Tip of the iceberg, indeed. This is reminiscent of how Reagan took credit for getting the Iran hostages released not long after he took office in 1980....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I wonder if this petition will be more effective than when Rick Mercer started an online petition to get Stockwell Day to change his first name to "Doris."



> The former campaigned on Day having a "hidden agenda", and the latter would title their campaign "Change You Can Trust". Compounding this suspicion was the Alliance's direct democracy proposals, which were revealed in the middle of the campaign to contain a clause saying any petition with 3% of Canadian voters' signatures would trigger a referendum on any subject. This caused many to fear that "special interest" groups would use the low requirements to put contentious subjects to a national referendum.
> 
> Satirists would have a field day with the Alliance campaign; Rick Mercer and This Hour has 22 Minutes had a mock online petition that, in the spirit of the proposed clause, called for a referendum on whether Day should change his first name to Doris. The petition garnered more than a million signatures. Liberal activist Warren Kinsella mocked Day's disbelief in evolution by saying, "The Flintstones weren't a documentary," and by bringing out a Barney doll, and stating that "this was the only dinosaur ever to be on Earth with humans."


btw the wiki on Stockwell Day is so funny, it should be required reading. It's funny because it's true, as they say.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> I'm thinking we'd all love to see the response to your letter. Post it when you get it, would'ja please? Thanks!


I phoned the bastard but I may write as well.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Here's an amusing site
> http://www.recalldavidemerson.com/


From the above is another petition link:
http://www.recalldavidemerson.com/contact

Sign them all! (See how many you can collect)


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Maybe the principled MPs on the government side should leave the caucus to form a breakaway party devoted to ending "politics as usual", promoting the "traditional family values" that PM Harper is bound to cast aside for political expediency, and fighting to put an end to Federal attempts to "appease" Quebec.

They could call it the Purity Party, or something like that.

After this schism hands power back to the Liberals, the Conservatives could be reduced to a tiny rump after the next election, with Purity assuming the role of third party behind the Official Opposition Bloc Québécois. But eventually cooler heads will prevail and, after Purity has a name change or two in order to create a more appealing brand, a Unite the Right movement will arise to stop splitting the right-wing vote and start standing up for Canada. By this time Purity will be firmly ensconced as Official Opposition, but the Great Leader will not reside at Stornoway, no sir.

A few years and a couple of amateurish election campaigns later, this new-new-new Conservative Party will finally field a team able to squeak out a minority against a tired, corrupt Liberal party that will have run a terribly incompetent campaign. (Governing is an exhausting business, you know.) 

Once in power, though, they will find that their internal differences make it difficult for the party to maintain cohesion...in particular, many of the original principled dissidents will be appalled by Prime Minister Day's sudden embrace of "politics as usual" and various about-faces on matters of dearly held principle. 

Some may decide that forming the new party compromised their principles too deeply, and will start to think of striking out to create a right-wing party that truly speaks to Canadian values and eschews politics-as-usual...

Nah, nothing like that could ever happen. Carry on.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

TOUCHDOWN, iMatt!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

iMatt -- exactly. The Conservatives have a long history of division. It isn't that Canada is tougher on them when they do what Liberals do, it's that they split apart when the Liberals don't. 

It's not like the Liberals don't have huge internal divisions and diversity, they just know that power only comes to those who get along.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And now for the spin:


> Conservative Revenue Minister Carol Skelton, who in the last session introduced a motion to restrict the practice of party-switching, told reporters she does not plan to renew the call when the House resumes.
> 
> “That was last year,” she said. “We talked about it, and I decided not to proceed with it. It's one of those matters that is debatable.”


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060209.wemerson0209/BNStory/National/home

I guess it's her way of starting to brown-nose her new boss...

backpedal, backpedal, backpedal ....


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

A Globe and Mail editorial is out calling for Emerson to resign. Yup, Harper's worst enemy.


> Mr. Emerson should face his riding's voters again
> 
> Thursday, February 9, 2006, Page A20
> 
> David Emerson has abused the trust of the voters in the B.C. riding of Vancouver Kingsway. The newly Conservative minister should resign and run again in a by-election, under Tory colours rather than the Liberal ones he sported on Jan. 23. And Prime Minister Stephen Harper should oblige him to do so, because it's the right thing to do and because the Conservatives ran their entire campaign on the principle that, unlike the Liberals, they would do the right thing.


I'm not registered at the G&M so I couldn't read the whole thing, but I can guess what it says.

Pardon me if this has already been posted.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Maybe Emerson is the vanguard of a new political strategy for parties. 

Plant a mole to run for the party that should win the riding and then have them switch immediately after, with the excuse that it's the best thing for the constituents. Of course we will all accept that the mole candidate knew all along what is better for us. We are just the stupid masses, after all. Thanks Harper and Emerson for pointing that out clearly to us.

The cool thing is it would make the results of every election a complete surprise until all the moles reveal themselves a week or so after the election. The government might have to propose an NHL style bribery cap, so that the perks going to traded moles doesn't get too high. After all they can't all move into cabinet.

Hey maybe the Green Party could get a few seats this way. Get on it guys!


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

This thread is obviously useless without a denunciation from the Sage of Saltspring, so allow me a hollow homage:

"You people might as well get over it. The Libs are nearly finished, and the NDP will never be anywhere. Accept it or don't -- the Cons are in power and there's nothing you can do about it.

"You can either get with the program -- or be part of a rapidly dying breed. We should all pray for a snap election to give Harper the mandate he needs to govern for the next decade.

"Trust me on this  "

Hmmm... it's still missing something...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Mac Yak:A more widespread statement from people that they are actually against or for this, and not just against the Conservatives doing it? The hypocrisy argument, while true, applies to the Liberals quite well on many things. I know a number have been clear on this, but for the others: 

Are you for, against or 'other' (describe) on floor-crossing, without resorting to partisan/anti-partisan attacks?

Personally, I'm not impressed but I don't mind. I don't like it, but I would prefer that ultimate power remain with the MPs, not the party (the system already favours parties, which I'm ok with as long as this 'escape valve' exists). 

I wouldn't be against forcing them to sit as independents, if that's what it takes to meet people's comfort zone, but not automatic byelections. Sitting as an independent seems like a formality because they can then just vote with the party, but maybe there are specific parliamentary time-allotment procedures or other things that matter.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

My idea of anti-turncoat legislation -- which I have dubbed C-13: The Emerson-Stronach Bill -- is as follows:

1. No crossing of the floor when the House is *not* in session.
2. No crossing until one year into the mandate of the current government.
3. The crosser must wait one year to be appointed to a cabinet post.
4. The crosser must stand down and allow a byelection to take place *IF* that is the will of the people in the riding, via petition along the lines of the recall provisions in the Elections B.C. Act.

I think that's it, but I'm open to other suggestions.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

yes an independent could indeed vote with the gov't, but should not be able to sit in the cabinet nor be a member of caucus

some people vote for the candidate, some for the party

all riding associates should now change by laws to not allow successful candidates to cross the floor to another part, cabinet, caucus, and the candidate should sign a contract and then if they violate it they can be easily sued


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I didn't like it when Belinda didn't and I don't like it when David did it. Neither deserve to be called the "w" word but I expected better from the Tories.

Well, nice move boys.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

cbc tried to get emerson on the phone as suggested by his handlers and after being put on hold for 25 minutes, emerson staffer said emerson couldn't come to the phone since he was caught in traffic while people saw emerson wandering around his office

the conference call was scheduled by his staff after emreson refused to come down to the press room or hold a press conference and take questions

methinks he knows he goofed... and is now just playing duck and cover


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> some people vote for the candidate, some for the party


Actually, I believe there have been surveys that show the vast majority vote for the party, many not even knowing the name of their MP or their favourite party's candidate. Don't have time to look it up right now, but I think I remember hearing that it was Elections Canada who did the study.

I've been hearing many Cons during this saying that Vancouver-Kingsway voters were voting for the candidate. While there may be a higher proportion there who _might_ have, since he had good name recognition, I think chances are that most did not. That doesn't even include the duped NDP folks who Emerson convinced to vote for him so that a Con wouldn't have a chance of getting in. Those people are truly pissed, probably at both the Cons and the Libs.

I did hear about one Con supporter who voted strategically for the NDP, because he recognized that his boy wouldn't win and he hated the Libs more than the NDP. He is quite happy at the turn of events, but I would doubt that there are too many like him.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> That doesn't even include the duped NDP folks who Emerson convinced to vote for him so that a Con wouldn't have a chance of getting in. Those people are truly pissed, probably at both the Cons and the Libs.


They should have voted NDP then! Especially in this riding, where the NDP actually had a shot at winning a seat.

When you vote strategically, you risk all sorts of unintended consequences.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

This issue (party-switching) is one of those reasons I couldn't vote Conservative. I *knew* they'd be eating crow after calling Stronach a whore, and now it's happened.

Switching parties is an important characteristic of the British parliamentary tradition. The saviour of the west - Churchill - switched twice!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> The saviour of the west - Churchill - switched twice!


Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



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

"If you want to call it arrogance, go ahead, fill the newspaper with it. I don't really care," Emerson told reporters on a conference call on Wednesday night.

Guess he took a page out of Conrad Black's book on how to deal with the public.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> This issue (party-switching) is one of those reasons I couldn't vote Conservative. I *knew* they'd be eating crow after calling Stronach a whore, and now it's happened.
> 
> Switching parties is an important characteristic of the British parliamentary tradition. The saviour of the west - Churchill - switched twice!



more like Dr. Death for thousands of Slavs that were sent back to the USSR by Churchill after they asked for asylum in GB.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Switching parties is an important characteristic of the British parliamentary tradition. The saviour of the west - Churchill - switched twice!


Time for the colonials to show up their former masters, then.  Seriously, some traditions aren't worth keeping, and this is one of them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This is not going away anytime soon.....



> Dissident Tories demand Emerson resign
> NDP candidate seeks ethics probe
> 
> BILL CURRY
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060210.wxemerson10/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Switching parties is an important characteristic of the British parliamentary tradition. The saviour of the west - Churchill - switched twice!


Indeed it is a tradition. I would hesitate though to compare Emerson and Harper's actions with those of Churchill. Changing parties over points of principle, when you have made your position clear for months or years, is entirely different from what happened in this case.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Pelao said:


> Indeed it is a tradition. I would hesitate though to compare Emerson and Harper's actions with those of Churchill. Changing parties over points of principle, when you have made your position clear for months or years, is entirely different from what happened in this case.


But would you compare Stronach's switch with Churchill's? Was that a matter of principle?

And could Emerson have "made his position clear for months or years?" He was a member of the Martin cabinet. It's not like he could have done his moaning in public.

For the record, I saw nothing wrong with Belinda's switch then, and I see nothing wrong with Emerson's switch now. Laws to prevent it will do nothing else but tie up the conscience of individual MPs in red tape.

As for the riding association's claim that "he stole their money," everyone knows that the money is at risk. Party switching is legal, and there is no guarantee that the candidate will win anyway. Horse racing is more fair; go there if you're "making an investment." And your member of Parliament is now a cabinet minister. I suspect you have a bigger voice than ever now.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> more like Dr. Death for thousands of Slavs that were sent back to the USSR by Churchill after they asked for asylum in GB.


Nobody's perfect. :-(


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> ... And your member of Parliament is now a cabinet minister. I suspect you have a bigger voice than ever now.


Howzat? Emerson was Industry Minister in Martin's cabinet, too. How do the constituents have "a bigger voice than ever now"?

EDIT:
Now I get it. The answer is: because he's still in cabinet, right? Wonderful.

And if the Toronto Star is right, Emerson may be about to pull a "rabbit" out of the hat with a softwood-lumber agreement with the U.S. that was apparently all but signed during the previous Liberal adminstration:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Now THAT'S "gettin' 'er done"!

Politics As Usual...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> Nobody's perfect. :-(


Churchill hardly deserves the moniker of "saviour" that you gave him

what's a few thousand slavic lives, eh?
"collateral damage?"


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Mac Yak said:


> And if the Toronto Star is right, Emerson may be about to pull a "rabbit" out of the hat with a softwood-lumber agreement with the U.S. that was apparently all but signed during the previous Liberal adminstration


No one's that stupid. Too many know of the deal already. If he was to claim it as a "Conservative" victory it would be not just stupid, but probably illegal, too.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> No one's that stupid. Too many know of the deal already. If he was to claim it as a "Conservative" victory it would be not just stupid, but probably illegal, too.


I hope you're correct. But between this and the betting scandal engulfing the NHL, it seems like the only thing we should expect lately is the unexpected...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Churchill hardly deserves the moniker of "saviour" that you gave him
> 
> what's a few thousand slavic lives, eh?
> "collateral damage?"


No, it was a mistake. Haven't you made a few, too? 

Would you rather the Hitler years were overseen by Chamberlain?

from Wikipedia: *Soon, though, his attention was drawn to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the dangers of Germany's rearmament. For a time he was a lone voice calling on Britain to strengthen itself to counter the belligerence of Germany. Churchill was a fierce critic of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. He was also an outspoken supporter of King Edward VIII during the Abdication Crisis, leading to some speculation that he might be appointed Prime Minister if the King refused to take Baldwin's advice and consequently the government resigned. However, this did not happen, and Churchill found himself politically isolated and bruised for some time after this.*

Churchill was a voice in a wilderness of appeasement. Without his vision, Europe would have been swallowed by the Nazis. This fact is beyond debate. Never a greater war-time leader has the world ever seen. 

More importantly, had Churchill been PM earlier, a war could have been avoided. If the Nazis were instructed, in no uncertain terms, that Britian would match aggression with aggression, the Nazis would have been cowed. It was the fact that the Allies were so fearful of war that they were ready to accomodate Hitler in any way they could to avoid it. It lead to the exact opposite.

The whole of Europe, US, and Canada were treating Hitler like a fellow idealist. Remember Canadian PM Mackenzie King: *King hoped an outbreak of war in the 1930s could be avoided, and he supported the appeasement policy of the British. He had met with Hermann Göring and Adolf Hitler, whom he said was a reasonable man who cared for his fellow man, working to improve his country in the midst of the Depression. He confided in his diary that he thought Hitler "might come to be thought of as one of the saviours of the world" and told a Jewish delegation that "Kristallnacht might turn out to be a blessing."*

Canada has never had a leader like Churchill. And we suffer for it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> No, it was a mistake. Haven't you made a few, too?


my mistakes haven't killed anyone never mind a few thousand people
deporting thousands of people to cetain death is hardly a "mistake"

crime against humanity is more like it

I would hate to live in a Canada that had a person like Churchill in it's past.
The blood of thousands of innocent people are on his hands.
All they wanted was asylum from a totalitarian regime.
Wasn't that the point of defeating Hitler?

Looks like Churchill had the same opinion of Slavs as did Hitler; "sub-human"


----------



## med8or (Jan 18, 2002)

FYI

Your signature number for this petition is 9685.

Wow...this IS growing.

J


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> my mistakes haven't killed anyone never mind a few thousand people


You've never been in a position like PM of a major world power so...bully for you.

The rest of your post was the same old vicious smear-campaign you level at so many. Examples are: Ignatieff, Cotler and now Churchill. You seem hell bent on taking a man's life as individual points, which you disagree with, and not as a whole. 

It must be nice seeing the world in such simple terms. Of course, by extension, we should judge you solely based on your very worst posts and brook no consideration for context. What do you think that judgement would be? Will your only defense be that, because you've never had real world-changing responsibility, you're somehow 'less bad' in your mistakes, mistakes being judged in an isolated and out-of-context manner?


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> And could Emerson have "made his position clear for months or years?" He was a member of the Martin cabinet. It's not like he could have done his moaning in public.
> 
> For the record, I saw nothing wrong with Belinda's switch then, and I see nothing wrong with Emerson's switch now. Laws to prevent it will do nothing else but tie up the conscience of individual MPs in red tape.


Well, actually, Emerson did make his apparent position clear for months - that they Conservatives are dangerous, heartless etc. I think his approach and timing are what cause the quesations - they raise issues of ethics and accountability - issues central to Harper's platform. So you have a person proclaiming certain political stances that play a large part in his election, then withing days, he reverses his position. In doing so he gains for himself a position of power and influence. He did not even pretend this was about any principle, or deep seated disagreement with Liberal positions.

It may be that a law will tie up a politicians conscience, but, in this case that would not matter as he has demonstrated a complete lack of meaningful conscience. 

Personally I feel Stronach also made errors: she would have achieved her stated goals by sitting as an independent, voting her conscience and joining the Liberals in time for the recent election. I accept that it was clear she was uncomfortable with the direction of the part under Harper, and this became increasingly clear. This is a clear distinction between her position and that of Emmerson. Still, while I feel she handled it poorly, Emmerson wipes her out in that regard.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Pelao said:


> Well, actually, Emerson did make his apparent position clear for months - that they Conservatives are dangerous, heartless etc.


Yes, but did he say whether he too was dangerous, heartless etc. and thought that he may find a home with them?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Don't forget that Belinda Stronach, so she tells the story, was called into Harper's office in the parliament building after she lost to him in the leadership race, and yelled at by him for a period of time. She lost respect for him, and allegiance to the party, then and there.

And when she crossed the floor, whatever principles were involved (for example, you may not agree that it was time for the government to fall, or stay in power, since that's the effect her crossing had), but why not become a cabinet minister at the same time?

I'm not sure there is a distinction between that and Emerson *just* having been elected a few days prior to his crossing. But it sure seems that there is. Stronach had many reasons to cross. Emerson had only the continuation of his power, since his political goals (in international trade, the one area he seems to agree with the tories about, and the one area he gets a say in now) would have been met regardless. 

Emerson isn't keeping the government from falling; he isn't keeping the political boat afloat; the only thing he's *keeping* is his government *limousine*.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> You've never been in a position like PM of a major world power so...bully for you.
> 
> The rest of your post was the same old vicious smear-campaign you level at so many. Examples are: Ignatieff, Cotler and now Churchill. You seem hell bent on taking a man's life as individual points, which you disagree with, and not as a whole.
> 
> It must be nice seeing the world in such simple terms. Of course, by extension, we should judge you solely based on your very worst posts and brook no consideration for context. What do you think that judgement would be? Will your only defense be that, because you've never had real world-changing responsibility, you're somehow 'less bad' in your mistakes, mistakes being judged in an isolated and out-of-context manner?


yeah, don't count a man's mistakes, just his life as a whole, eh?
ignore the bad stuff. only remember what you agree with

what's next? Stalin and Hitler were "mistaken?"

seems others were not too pleased with Churchill either
Churchill must have had real disdain for "potato eaters"

De Valera after the death of Churchill: 


> "LONDON, AUGUST 18TH: Columnist Alan Hamilton wrote that discreet British enquiries established that Eamon De Valera, President of Ireland, would not accept an invitation to Churchill's funeral. Instead he sent a low grade representative and made a statement describing Churchill as "a great Englishman, one of the greatest of his time," but adding, "We in Ireland had to regard Sir Winston over a long period as a dangerous adversary." De Valera did send a message of personal condolence to Lady Churchill."
> 
> De Valera proving again proving he was a class act. His opinions on the danger of Churchill reflect the widespread feeling of the Irish people about the man


http://www.irishblogs.ie/post/thursday-thoughts-churchill-and-ireland


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> seems others were not too pleased with Churchill either
> Churchill must have had real disdain for "potato eaters"


How do you come to that conclusion? de Valera may have seen Churchill as an adversary, but that does not mean that the feeling was reciprocated, and it certainly does not mean Churchill felt any disdain for the people of the Republic. Churchill was of course very sensitive to the fact that the Republiic remained neutral during WW2, this making action against U boats difficult, and of course providing access to the UK for German spies.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> yeah, don't count a man's mistakes, just his life as a whole, eh?
> ignore the bad stuff. only remember what you agree with
> 
> what's next? Stalin and Hitler were "mistaken?"


I say:
"You seem hell bent on taking a man's life as individual points, which you disagree with, and not as a whole."

And you say:
"yeah, don't count a man's mistakes, just his life as a whole, eh? ignore the bad stuff. only remember what you agree with"

And then you proceed to trot out the usual suspects in an attempt to make your point by incorrectly applying your "opponents' " ideas. 

You've made yourself clear.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
> Churchill to the Palestine Royal Commission (1937)"


Kinda hard to whitewash this.....



> Speech in Dundee, Scotland (10 October 1908)
> The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.
> Churchill to Prime Minister Asquith on compulsory sterilisation of "the feeble-minded and insane". (1910)
> I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can't help it — I enjoy every second of it.
> A letter to a friend (1916)


He's product of his age and class and perhaps the best person to hold off the "Huns".
No hagiography please tho.

Churchill was exactly who Orwell warned against.
He wrote his memoirs of WWII knowing full well he was writing a history that did not occur and to cover the darker secrets that did.
I do not in the least say he was wrong in this.....only that it was part and parcel of the times and conditions where one great enemy was defeated and another immediately took it's place.....he hated the Reds.

I'd want Patton to run a war but not a country. I'd want Ghandi to run a country....not a war.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sir_Winston_Churchill

There is lots more.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> my mistakes haven't killed anyone never mind a few thousand people
> deporting thousands of people to cetain death is hardly a "mistake"
> crime against humanity is more like it


The great leaders of history are not flawless. But their errors must always be weighed against their overall contributions.

Lincoln spent his entire political career trying to end slavery. But he still considered blacks inferior, and opposed political equality for them. 

Jefferson, too, opposed slavery, but himself was a slaveowner. Oh, he did a few other insignificant things too, though, like advocate freedom of the press and freedom of religion, representative democracy, and end the import of Africans to the US.



MACSPECTRUM said:


> I would hate to live in a Canada that had a person like Churchill in it's past.


We did: Mackenzie King. from Wikipedia:
*King hoped an outbreak of war in the 1930s could be avoided, and he supported the appeasement policy of the British. He had met with Hermann Göring and Adolf Hitler, whom he said was a reasonable man who cared for his fellow man, working to improve his country in the midst of the Depression. He confided in his diary that he thought Hitler "might come to be thought of as one of the saviours of the world" and told a Jewish delegation that "Kristallnacht might turn out to be a blessing."

This kind of ignorance took a blunt tone in action in that the King government, especially through the civil servant, Charles Frederick Blair, refused to allow significant Jewish immigration regardless of how the situation for the Jewish population in Europe deterioriated into the Holocaust. It was an attitude epitomized by a comment, by one civil servant, when asked how many Jews were allowed to immigrate immediately after World War II, he replied "None is too many." That became the title of a famous history book which was instrumental in revealing Canada's anti-Semitic immigration policy in that period. The ocean liner St. Louis was carrying 907 Jewish people seeking shelter from the happenings of the war in Europe. Of the 907 people on the ship, none entered Canada. Forty-four well-known Canadians, including professors, editors, and industrialists urged King to offer them sanctuary, but King would not hear of it. This was captured in a 1976 movie "The Voyage of the Damned".*

Most importantly, Mackenzie King was nowhere near the level of leader that Lincoln, Jefferson, or Churchill were. Their mistakes are forgivable in light of their magnificent contributions to liberal democracy. Mackenzie King had no such achievements.

You clearly need to brush up on your Canadian history.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Lpk, perspective is not wanted here. The world is much simpler than that. Ignore all the complexities of WWII and its aftermath, and just post based on a narrow world view as if every historical choice was in isolation from the world around it. It makes life easier.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/11/emerson-ndp060211.html

<blockquote>More than four hundred people attended a rally in Vancouver on Saturday to pressure Liberal-turned-Tory David Emerson to resign.

It's another forum for people to vent their anger with Emerson. Organizers of two online petitions say they have gathered more than 20,000 signatures in a week.</blockquote>


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Beej said:


> Lpk, perspective is not wanted here. The world is much simpler than that. Ignore all the complexities of WWII and its aftermath, and just post based on a narrow world view as if every historical choice was in isolation from the world around it. It makes life easier.


I've been shown the error of my ways. Thanks, Beej!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

PB: Things are getting quite ugly. Did any of this stuff happen to Stronach? I think her riding leaned Liberal anyway, but I can't remember if they had protests and petitions.

Any bets on how many votes Emerson gets next election? Or if he even runs...


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM wrote:



> yeah, don't count a man's mistakes, just his life as a whole, eh?
> ignore the bad stuff. only remember what you agree with


I think we could fairly say that you are doing the opposite... ignoring the good stuff and counting only the mistakes. Churchill made terrible decisions at several times in his career... but so central was his role in World War II that it's hard to imagine Britain surviving, let alone winning, without him. The British public knew they needed Churchill but also knew he was no saint... they certainly booted him from power with alacrity once the war has been won.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I think we could fairly say that you are doing the opposite... ignoring the good stuff and counting only the mistakes.


i was making the point that "saviour" is very inappropriate to describe Churchill

logic dictates that one is allowed to disprove by example, but not prove by example


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> PB: Things are getting quite ugly. Did any of this stuff happen to Stronach? I think her riding leaned Liberal anyway, but I can't remember if they had protests and petitions.


Things are getting ugly, but I am not surprised at all.

I don't think that Stronach was protested, but as I recall her riding was far more evenly divided. In Van-Kingsway the Conservatives only garnered some 20% of the vote. I'm not surprised that they are pissed.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> logic dictates that one is allowed to disprove by example, but not prove by example


A bizarre philosophical tenet.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> A bizarre philosophical tenet.


my math professors would disagree


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I don't think that Stronach was protested, but as I recall her riding was far more evenly divided. In Van-Kingsway the Conservatives only garnered some 20% of the vote. I'm not surprised that they are pissed.


AND he was a "parachute in" candidate  - talk about insult to injury...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I would hate to live in a Canada that had a person like Churchill in it's past.
> The blood of thousands of innocent people are on his hands.
> All they wanted was asylum from a totalitarian regime.
> Wasn't that the point of defeating Hitler?


Looks like we may have another "Churchill" in our past: Tommy Douglas!

*As World War II continued through Douglas's first term as premier, the Government of Canada continued its policy of discrimination against Japanese Canadians. In addition to the Japanese Canadian internment, the government deported almost 4,000 Japanese immigrants and Canadians of Japanese descent back to war-torn Japan. In 1945, in response to a personal letter written to him, Douglas revealed that he did not object to the deportation of those Japanese Canadians who spoke their native tongue. Douglas was a lifelong defender of civil liberties and would later deplore the way that the Japanese Canadians had been treated. The 1945 letter revealing his feelings towards Japanese Canadians remains an inexplicable aberration.*

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

I don't know where this "letter" is or to whom he was conversing, so I am skeptical that he actually said this.


----------

