What's that? 7 or 8 posts defending what most of your conservative brothers and sister consdire indefensible? Valiant and loyal to be sure. But what about the truly even more hypocritical cabinet appointments? No comments??

Some would say that they have no problem with the appointment of a defence industry lobbyist being put in charge of defence industry spending. But friends are friends, right? And technically the Federal Accountability Act only applies to politicians who become lobbyists after the fact. So there shouldn't be even a hint of impropriety here given the high standards that Harper set for the government. Right? Right?

Similarly, if you can convince yourself that seeking out a Liberal party member LESS THAN TWO WEEKS after he was elected as a Liberal is OK, despite what so many of your caucus said on prior occasions, then it should be no problem to defend the appointment to the MINISTER OF JUSTICE someone who was convicted of breaking Manitoba's Elections Act.

But what I really can't understand is how easily you and so many other Conservatives have dismissed or have equivocated or are trying to overlook the appointment to the cabinet of an unelected senator. Sure it is constitutional and sure Trudeau and Mulroney did it before, but weren't you just elected on a platform of being different, on promising never to appoint anyone to the senate who didn't have a mandate from voters, on ending the graft and pork and patronage?

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at February 7, 2006 03:15 PM

---

Well, I agree with you Steve, but my argument is most certainly focused on personalities, and not the merits, which--to me--is self evident.

So you probably don't want to add me to your list :-)

Posted by: CERDIP at February 7, 2006 03:15 PM

---

What are the details of the Conviction of the Justice Minister? I know it was a violation of the election act of Manitoba, but isnt that a risk of being a politician? Like speeding or parking tickets for a taxi driver?

I like having a former General as a defence minister. I think the military will like it too. In an ideal world all ministers would have worked in or have some working knowledge of the fields they become minister of. I know its not an ideal world, but we can start by having a General as Defence minister.

Having an unelected senator in the cabinet is unconstitutional? Where does it say that? I have never read the Canadian Constitution, but I would like to know. Unfortunately - for the time being - all senators are unelected. At least Mr Harper has an understanding with this senator to run for election at the next general election - or in a by-election should a Montreal seat open up.

Lots of people where making noise about big cities not being represented on the conservative bench - and as a result not in the conservative government. Mr Harper responded to this criticism and found some big city folks to hang out with us country bumpkins for a while... Only to find a whole new mess, no pleasing the media 1.0.

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 03:30 PM

---

Curtis:

You misread. Appointing a senator to cabinet is legal. The point is that Conservatives are defending this action by saying it is constitutional and other Prime Ministers are doing it, so what is the problem? Generally, I agree, but Harper expressly said that he would not appoint someone to the senate without a mandate from voters, meaning that, even though the constitution only allows appointments to the Senate, he would only appoint senators who have gone through some sort of election in the relavent province. Couple that with the fact that he ran on a platform of accountability when the new Minister of Public Works won't have to answer questions during Question Period. Couple that with the fact that Harper campaigned on integrity and doing things different. That's why it's so outrageous and hypocritical, far more so even than the Emerson fiasco.

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at February 7, 2006 03:38 PM

---

Take your pick Liberal slime and corupyion or CPC slim, slim wears off, coruption stays forever. Unless of course the crooks get kicked out, sorry Libs your time is over.

Posted by: barrie at February 7, 2006 03:48 PM

---

Not a defence, exactly, but I think you can add me to that list.

Posted by: Occam's Carbuncle at February 7, 2006 03:50 PM

---

At least Canadians are starting to realize that, at a minimum, Conservatives are slime.

Thanks for the concession Barrie.

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at February 7, 2006 03:50 PM

---

While I would agree if were it not for the fact that this is not a senator who has been appointed and will stay on until he is 75 years old, he will run in the next election, that is a big difference. As for Emerson, the Prime Minister is not being hypocritcal on this, his views were clearly expressed during the campaign.

Posted by: Platty at February 7, 2006 03:53 PM

---

http://www.japnaamsingh.com/2006/02/great-move.html

http://www.japnaamsingh.com/2006/02/cool-it.html

http://www.japnaamsingh.com/2006/02/explaining-uproar.html

Posted by: Sid at February 7, 2006 03:55 PM

---

Captain's Quarters can be added to your list.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006287.php

"The press, meanwhile, did their best to spin this as a betrayal of principle. However, after Belinda Stronach's switch to the Liberals, the Tories only complained that the portfolio she was given was nothing but a sinecure, a payoff for keeping the Martin government afloat. The Tories do not face a no-confidence vote, and cannot be accused of paying Emerson off for his switch. Besides, Emerson doesn't share a bed with a Liberal leader the way Stronach did with Tory deputy leader Peter MacKay, making hers a dual betrayal."

Posted by: Jeff Matychuk at February 7, 2006 03:55 PM

---

I am more troubled by the instant senator than by the Emerson fiasco, that's for sure.

Why should their be a minister of contracting anyhow? shouldn't that be a committee appointment? Keep the process clean by allowing all parties access and a roll in the awarding of the contracts. That way the government can't take all the blame for pork - the committee approved it. It would give a few backbenchers from each party something to do.

Breaking a promise is a bad thing. I wish Mr Harper said something along the lines of "I know I promised not to do this, but given the slate of MPs that the voters have given me to work with, I needed to bring in representatives for areas that didn't happen to vote conservative. This is important, because I am the Prime Minister of Canada running the Government of Canada. I have sworn an oath to serve all Canadians, and will irregardless of how they voted" -- If Mr Harper could offer an explanation that looks like that - it would smooth a lot of feathers.

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 04:00 PM

---

Granted Harper is a breath of fresh air for this dying democracy we 'called' Canada.

Granted floor crossing is a fact of life and granted not all Albertans can be a cabinet minister.

I wonder if more Liberals want to cross over how many more positions will be lost due to "portfolio experience".

Almost the same idea of why hire new, or young people because they don't have "experience".

Something about fresh blood, new ideas fade away.

Honestly I know Harper is smart, so I have to trust he did the right thing. Just how it was done bothers me.

But if the Liberals, MSM, CTV-Tass and CBC-Pravada are all howling over it, then it means Harper did the right thing.

I guess time will tell, wish him the best as I'm sure he's under tremendous pressure from the elite society down east.

cheers
tom

Posted by tomax

Posted by: tomax at February 7, 2006 04:04 PM

---

"The issue of David Emerson's appointment to Stephen Harper's cabinet has most conservative bloggers furious. "

Has that been documented as fact? It might very well be the case, but I just took a look at the BT blogroll and it seems an extremely vocal minority are the ones who are calling for Harper's head, not the majority.

I'm not wild about the situation, almost nobody is. But to claim that a majority of conservative bloggers (it should be noted that many Blogging Tories cannot reasonably described as small-c conservatives) are "furious" appears to be factually inaccurate.

I think there is middle ground between "furious" and being outright supportive that would most accurately describe many of us CPC supporters.

Kate of SDA made it very clear she does not like this decision, though she sees some wisdom in it. She could just as easily be described as unsupportive of Emerson's defection, based on her own words:

"Now, please be advised dear Liberal readers, that I am in no way impeding or objecting to your criticism of David Emerson for doing the same. Have at 'im!
...
Certainly, I'd have preferred he'd gone to the back benches and earned his way into cabinet
...
I expected there would be decisions made by Harper I wasn't going to like, and I expect there to be more."

Hmmm...doesn't sound too supportive. At the same time, she's realistic. So am I, and so are many others who are somewhere between furious and happy about this whole thing. At any rate, it's been blown way, way out of proportion.

Posted by: Anonalogue at February 7, 2006 04:10 PM

---

I am one who absolutely thinks this move is political brilliance!! I don't understand..but my position is crystal clear on my blog.

www.darkbluetory.blogspot.com

Hope you can add me to that list.

Thanks.

Posted by: Dark Blue Tory at February 7, 2006 04:11 PM

---

Thank you Steve for facilitating this facinating debate with your posts. Check out my comment, the comment by dragev at February 7, 2006 03:32 PM on the SDA post.

Posted by: dragev at February 7, 2006 04:12 PM

---

You can add me to your list

http://blacksheeppress.blogspot.com/2006/02/misguided-blog-started-to-get-rid-of.html
http://blacksheeppress.blogspot.com/2006/02/kate-puts-it-best.html

Posted by: Jason at February 7, 2006 04:17 PM

---

What grounds does Ted Cerberus have for asserting that Harper pledged not to appoint any unelected senator, or that a Cabinet minister from the Senate would not have to answer in Question Period? Did previous Senators in Cabinet refuse questions?

Posted by: ebt at February 7, 2006 04:23 PM

---

Does anyone actually believe that Harper came this far to just toss it all away?

Where is the faith?

These appointments are for a reason. What that reason is? We dont know yet, but holy sh*t........relax!!!!

Let the liberals freak out all they want and let the media bend backwards on their knees...but dont chuck faith into the trash-can without employing the sober thought that brought us to this point in time where we are finally rid of rodential liberals.

Let's wait and see what Harper is planning here...he has done well so far, why leap off a cliff?

Posted by: Boar-Axe at February 7, 2006 04:23 PM

---

So Steve what's so good and brilliant about this move?

Is it because your group of brothers and sisters are on that bandwagon? Besides if its discovered months from now that its not a good move, nobody will remember or even care what your stout of heart non-stooges have banded together for.

Seems incongruous that you've made this topic about a group of people then reminded bloggers to focus on the argument not the people.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 7, 2006 04:32 PM

---

ebt:

First, Fortier can't answer questions during question period because... he does not sit in the House of Commons! Doh! Forgot about that one.

Second, what Harper said about senators requiring a mandate from the voters, it's actually, laughably, still on the Conservative website at: http://www.conservative.ca/1004/35367/.

To quote:

"First, let’s get on with the job of electing senators. A senate chair should be occupied by someone with a democratic mandate, and Canadians should be able to mark their ballot for their Senator, as well as for their MP. We need a ballot with senators’ names, and seats with senators that have been elected. Under a Conservative government, Canadians will choose who sits in this chair.

In the 21st century, those who want to sit in the parliament of a democratic state should have a mandate from the people. The Prime Minister currently holds a virtually free hand in the selection of Senators. As Prime Minister I will use that power to establish a federal process for electing senators. Alberta has already held provincial elections for individuals aspiring to the Senate. A national Conservative government will establish a national process for senatorial elections in each province and territory on an interim basis.

Electing senators is, of course, only the first reform we need. Establishing a fixed term for senators – a term consistent with the norms of democratic office – will also be a particularly high priority. The naming of elected senators will get the ball rolling on these and other senate reforms. Once we start electing senators, we will engage the provinces and Canadian voters to start building a broad consensus on a more comprehensive plan of senate reform. An appointed Senate is a relic of 19th century Canada. An elected Senate, reflective of the federal nature of our democracy, will be a defining feature of the 21st century Canada. The Liberal position of all-or-nothing reform, of no change until everything is changed, is designed to take us nowhere. It has succeeded, to Canada’s detriment. It is time to move ahead."

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at February 7, 2006 04:36 PM

---

Oh, and Analalogue, I was just picking up on what Steve said in the original post

The issue of David Emerson's appointment to Stephen Harper's cabinet has most conservative bloggers furious. A doughty band of brother and sister bloggers have staked out the hill opposite, and on it they've hosted the flag that reads: "Hey, this makes sense!" A small band, to be sure...

Ted

Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at February 7, 2006 04:38 PM

---

I agree...

I think Emerson's post was a gutsy move...

he did it despite the bad press he knew he was going to get!

http://cloudofidiotgas.blogspot.com/2006/02/harpers-balls.html

Posted by: Sierra at February 7, 2006 04:39 PM

---

Harper has barely got out of the starting blocks, and people want blood already.
Give the guy a decent chance, you act like he received a majority.
In case you haven't noticed "what can I get" has replaced "he has principles" when it comes to the Canadian electorate.
I'm not saying principles are unimportant, but the only chance of a lasting change in direction. When it comes to this countries politics lies in Harpers hands.
What the heck are people going to do when Harper starts wheeling and dealing in parliament to keep the conservatives afloat, poke holes in their own boat?

Posted by: Scott Richter at February 7, 2006 04:46 PM

---

It does take some degree of guts to turn on your own principles so soon after getting elected. That goes for Harper and Emerson. We have yet to see any evidence of principles with Fortier.

Ted

Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at February 7, 2006 04:48 PM

---

For those of you curious about the Senate appointment, this is a direct quote from a CBC interview with Mansbridge.

"The other thing I want to do is, you know, I'm a long-time advocate of Senate reform which we're going to start through an electoral process. One of the things the Senate is supposed to do and what the upper house does in most federations is provide a forum for regional representation in the national government, and I think one of the ways you strengthen the federal government in a large country like Canada is making sure that that government itself better reflects the regional nature of the country."

So he said before the election an elected Senate would allow for better representation across the country. His appointment did exactly what he said he was going to do. He just doesn't have legislation passed yet for an elected one so he did the next best thing and appointed one. Consistent with his previous statements.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at February 7, 2006 04:48 PM

---

Look, Harper is a hypocrite, and with him, the entire Conservative party. There's just no way around that. Lets see how simply we can put this: he did something today, he said was wrong yesterday. What's to say after that? That at worst he's as bad as the liberals? That leaders can only be held to an ethical standards when they're in opposition?

If you're defending this garbage, realize you're more comedienne than critic.

Posted by: Central Content Provider at February 7, 2006 04:50 PM

---

For the record, I'd be much happier if the system allowed incoming Prime Ministers to appoint anyone they considered qualified to cabinet positions - as they do in the US Administration.

The talent pool would be much less limited, and you might be able to solicit people who don't have the time to campaign, or the "nuance" for party politics, know how to get the job done.

Remember how many of our elected politicians are lawyers. That's great for Justice. But they have to scrape to find someone who knows the first thing about Fisheries, Agriculture or the Military - those aren't occupations that send a lot of MP's to the benches.

Perhaps that helps explain why I can't get too exorcised about this "he's not elected" thing over the appointed Fortier or the fact that Emerson ran as a Liberal. I've long felt the doors should be wide open, just so long as the person best suited for the job was found.

Posted by: Kate at February 7, 2006 05:06 PM

---

Oh come on now, Kate. While I take your point about the most qualified person from the right industry - which would apply to Emerson - what special skills does one need for Public Works? What special skills does Fortier have for Public Works that the other 98 elected members don't?

The two main democratic deficit issues here with Fortier and Emerson are:

(1) for the ministry that doles out the most cash and has been the most controversial and problematic over the last 25 years, we have a minister who doesn't have to answer to critics in Question Period. We should be more open to broader backgrounds, but the Westminister Parliamentary system is the one we have.

(2) it's not that Emerson defected - every member should leave a caucus that it can no longer support - it's that he defected within TWO BLOODY WEEKS of running for the Liberals and against everything the Conservatives were running on. The democratic deficit here lies with Vancouver-Kingsway who haven't elected a Conservative in over 4 decades and where the Conservative candidate was a distant third.

While Fortier is far worse from my point of view given Harper's very clear and principle view on appointed senators, Emerson is a pretty bad move too.

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at February 7, 2006 05:34 PM

---

Steve, you can add me - Strongworld.blogspot.com - to your list.

I think we should be mature enought to look at these appointments and decide that they were made with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the country. And that they were consistent with what Stephen Harper said before and during the campaign.

Let's give this cabinet a chance already.

Posted by: Bill Strong at February 7, 2006 05:35 PM

---

The promised Conservative moral high ground didn't last through the swearing in ceremonies( is this the new record for the fastest broken promise in Canadian history?). We have ELECTIONS to ELECT people to our government.The Fortier appointment borders on a dictatorship don't you think Mr Janke?.

Posted by: at February 7, 2006 05:37 PM

---

"I think we should be mature enought to look at these appointments and decide that they were made with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the country."

Hmmm. That sounds familiar. Now, where did I hear those words before. Think. Think. Think.

Oh, yes. I remember. All too well.

Chretien. In front of Gomery. Justifying the sponsorship program.

Hmmm. It took 11 years for Chretien to get to that point and here we are on Day 2 of this "different kind of government".

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at February 7, 2006 05:41 PM

---

You have no principal, ethics or integrity. All you're trying to do is rationalize in an attempt to make like things are okay.

There are 3 kinds of people on this issue:

1. Liberals (politicians, pundits and the public) who defended what Stronach did but find what Emmerson did to be appaling.

2. Conservatives (politicians, pundits and the public) who attacked Stronach for what she did by think what Emmerson did to be okay.

3. Conservatives like me (REAL conservatives!) who say "a pox on all your houses!" and who have principal, ethics and integrity, and certainly don't want to become what we so despised in the Liberals party.

Posted by: Tory at February 7, 2006 06:02 PM

---

Umm, someone here is factually incorrect. There IS a Question Period in the Senate, and I'm sure 70+ Liberal Senators will keep Mr. Fortier on his toes. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Assistant in the House will also answer questions pertaining to Public Works.

I wish people would know their stuff before shooting their mouths off. It would be nice.

Posted by: Dark Blue Tory at February 7, 2006 06:06 PM

---

Ted, I was simply sharing an opinion on the broader topic of how the business of cabinet appointments is handicapped by electoral politics in general.

I've pretty much stated my position on the specifics.

Agreeing to disagree is perfectly fine by me.

Posted by: Kate at February 7, 2006 06:07 PM

---

You can add me to the list as well. In praise of Stephen

Posted by: BBS at February 7, 2006 07:09 PM

---

Very nice comments from Fortier stating, "I did not want to run in the election."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/07/fortier-michael060207.html

I did not run either, can I be a minister too?

Posted by: Michael at February 7, 2006 07:21 PM

---

Running in an election can be so inconvenient.

My sympathy-support for this turkey went out the window with this statement. I think the Conservatives should have the quickest cabinet shuffle in history, and ditch this guy.

Maybe an elected member from Montreal would like the cabinet seat... There are a lot of BQ around there, right?

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 08:00 PM

---

I don't know if this qualifies or not. I defended the practise of crossing the floor, not this particular occasion - and I won't. Harper shouldn'thave inmy opinion, but that's tomorrows post.

http://hespeler.blogspot.com/2006/02/defending-indefensible.html

Posted by: Brian Gardiner at February 7, 2006 08:22 PM

---

Jonathan Hamel posts in defence of Harper's move, calling it pragmatic, in the comments here

Posted by: Jarrett at February 7, 2006 08:23 PM

---

For the record, I'd be much happier if the system allowed incoming Prime Ministers to appoint anyone they considered qualified to cabinet positions - as they do in the US Administration.

Agreed, but we'd need to adjust things fundamentally. Right now, cabinet members submit themselves to questioning during Question Period.

Normally I'd say that was a strength in our system, but if you read Question Periods transcripts, the questions go something like this:

Opposition member: "Mr Speaker, Canadians would like to know what plan the Minister in charge of fisheries will be implementing to address the presence of foreign vessesls in our waters."

Cabinet minister: "Mr Speaker, instead of answering the question, I'd like to point out that the opposition member voted against same-sex marriage."

That sort of mental drooling eliminates any advantage won by having ministers submit to questions.

And frankly I don't understand why we have a federal minister for fisheries anyway. Isn't that a provincial matter?

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 7, 2006 08:25 PM

---

I'm not a blogger (far too lazy for that), but you can count me in, although I was a bit shocked at first.

Emerson will not be the last. There are several "blue grits" who are unhappy about the direction and future of the NGP. The others wil be told to sit as indies for a few months.

I'm quite sure that Big Stevie Wonder was well aware of what the fallout would be and he must have thought long and hard about the implications.

This is a storm in a teacup for the CPC (full disclosure - I have been a member ever since I realized the stupidity and destructiveness of my former socialist beliefs a few years ago).

Jack Linard

Posted by: Jack Linard at February 7, 2006 08:32 PM

---

BTW - I believe that any "backdoor" approach to an elected senate is insane. Reform should only be attempted by constitutional means.

Posted by: Jack Linard at February 7, 2006 08:41 PM

---

The backdoor is the only realistic door that's open. I think senators should be elected during provincial elections, and will sit only as long as the government of the province, that they represent, sits.

I prefer this method, as I dont want senators sweeping into office with the federal government. I want the senate to be a chamber of sober second thought, not a partisan rubber stamp.

Also, this would give each province, the ability to explore how the senators could be elected. Alberta has elected to have senators directly from the voters. But other provinces may prefer that senators are elected by the provincial legislature, or appointed by premier of the province. It'll give us an opportunity not to just have greater democratic representation in Ottawa, it will also give us an opportunity to experiment in democracy.

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 08:58 PM

---

would be difficult to run Public Works by committee. It's a huge department (2nd largest, after Defence). It takes care of all administrative functions for the entire federal government.

I know that elected senators are part of the platform, but doesn't the mechanism have to be setup/approved first? What does he do about vacancies in the meantime? Also, this senatorial appointment is temporary, a la "let me borrow the senate seat, just this one time". lol.

Was I surprised (even dismayed) at first? Definitely, but I think it was the right move. It's not just a question of getting more urban votes, I really believe we need a Conservative government in power for a number of years to get this country back on track. Will be very difficult to do without the urban vote.

Posted by: IronLady at February 7, 2006 09:02 PM

---

Stephen Harper bent over backwards, at his peril, to include people from all regions of Canada in his government. I just finished reading the cheap shot headline on Borque that "Fortier Too Gutless To Run". This what his CBC link said of Fortier;

"He had a "great career" in Montreal and five young children, he said, but Conservative Leader and prime minister-designate Stephen Harper called, and he decided to take the job after talking to his wife.

"This isn't what my family was looking forward to," he said. "Even today, it's not easy."

So am I to understand that he is being called gutless because he put his family first? I knew the Liberals didn't have much room in their hearts for family values but this just takes the cake. Same for the cheap shots when harper shook his kids hands on the morning of the 24th. Did it occur to anyone that maybe they were shaking on a deal he had with his 'family' that they would make this sacrifice (can anyone deny that they aren't making a huge one) for a mutually agreed, amount of time?

The fact that Harper showed up in a mini van with his family is a pretty symbolic message of who he holds near and dear. What did Fortier show up in?

Get a life!!! Since when did it become a crime to marry a member of the opposite sex and have children?

Posted by: Cheri at February 7, 2006 09:20 PM

---

I don't begrudge the guy having a family.

However if its a detriment to his pursuit of a political career, he shouldn't pursue one.

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 09:31 PM

---

And what about Mothers Curtis? Should they stay home too? Or should we have Nationalized day care? What about when they're sick or the school calls? Should women be discouraged if their family life interferes? What about gays whose partners interfere with their ambitions? How about looking after elderly parents?

Posted by: Cheri at February 7, 2006 09:39 PM

---

Add my post to your list...

http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2006/02/my-thoughts-on-emerson-defection.html

Posted by: Christian Conservative at February 7, 2006 09:53 PM

---

Life is a compromise. We all have to choose what is most important to us. Women are even more keenly aware of this, than men. Likely this is one of the reasons that fewer women choose to run for office.

His 'excuse' for not running, was that it was too disruptive to his family life. Granted politics is very disruptive to a family life, but he should have declined the offer to become a minister, or he should have come up with a better excuse for not running.

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 10:10 PM

---

It is part of business, as we all know companies steal employees from other companies all the time. Time to grow up people.

I was bought, took a much better offer from a competitor. It happens all the time. Everyone knows someone who moved to another job for a better offer.

I see that Harper is treating his position as a business leader and is making decisions on best fit for the job.

Come on, every company is pissed when they lose a star employee. Everyone expects loyalty but we all chase higher expectations for ourselves.

You can add me to the list!
www.democracyintrouble.blogspot.com

Posted by: mikeh at February 7, 2006 10:52 PM

---

Curtis, you have to walk a mile in someone elses shoes before you judge...
Do you have Kids? Have you ever run for Federal Politics? Been a Prime Minister?

He didn't want to get involved, someone, something convinced him to re-consider. Life IS a compromise. It's also OK to change your mind or be persuaded to make a sacrafice for the good of one's Country.

Posted by: Cheri at February 7, 2006 11:30 PM

---

Well, Angy, you can add my site (ThisCanada) to the list:

http://www.thiscanada.com

This is the post, and a further stirring defence within the ensuing comments!

http://www.thiscanada.com/2006/02/06/harpers-cabinet/

Enjoy, Erik

Posted by: Erik Sorenson at February 7, 2006 11:33 PM

---

My mediocre defense of the Emerson defection:

http://potentpew.blogspot.com/2006/02/david-emerson-fallout.html

Posted by: Jonathan at February 7, 2006 11:49 PM

---

Steve said

"And frankly I don't understand why we have a federal minister for fisheries anyway. Isn't that a provincial matter?"

Your partly right the Feds have ceased so much funding for fisheries DFO that it might as well be a Provincial responsibility. Here in NL our premier even started funding our own Wild life officers to try and curb the salmon poaching because the feds have cut their budgets so severely.
We have Coast guard ships tied up at dock because they can't afford the fuel it coasts to patrol the grand banks within the 200 mile limit let alone the 350 mile continental shelf which the United Nations Law of the Sea article 77 says we have a right to control. Continental shelf of the grand banks nose tail and flemish cap from foreigners raping and pillaging our fishing grounds because they have decimated their own.

The PEI supreme court sued the feds over their mismanagement and won their case.
[url]http://www.gov.pe.ca/courts/supreme/reasons/20819.pdf[/url]

Then there is the 6 million, Harp 3 million Hood and 1 millon other seals 10,000,000 seals that are having a free for all on the northern tip of NFLD and of the coast of Labrador. All because the Liberals didn't have the balls to stand up for Canada but cow towed to the Animal Rights Activists major fund raising campaign and Movie Stars looking for some free publicity.
[url]http://www.katu.com/stories/76832.html[/url]
Watch this video where a seal catches and eats an 8 foot long Sturgeon.

We have a responsibility as the most sentient beings on the planet to ensure that the balance of nature is kept as best as possible. You can't take one species and let the other florish and explode without feeling the consequences. It's called the Balance of Nature and you would think that the Animal Rights Activists groups more so than anyone would know what the consequences of upsetting the balance of nature are. Were seeing it now as we blog the total collapse of the fishery with noone willing to admit that the balance of nature has been upset by the ARA's meddling.

Posted by: NL Expatriate at February 7, 2006 11:55 PM

---

you can add me.

http://therawlife.blogspot.com

I have a lot of respect for Stephen Harper and think he is doing a brilliant job so far.

Posted by: Jodie at February 8, 2006 12:19 AM

---

There's an endorsement with a brief anecdote about Emerson over at Peaktalk:
http://www.peaktalk.com/archives/001942.php

Posted by: at February 8, 2006 12:20 AM

---

"Curtis, you have to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you judge...
Do you have Kids? Have you ever run for Federal Politics? Been a Prime Minister?

He didn't want to get involved, someone, something convinced him to re-consider. Life IS a compromise. It's also OK to change your mind or be persuaded to make a sacrifice for the good of Ono's Country."

If someone convinced him to change his mind, then he should have said so, not just leave it hang with the inconvenience of running in an election. Makes him sound like he doesn't have the conviction to run in an election.

We all make choices in life, and we all live with the consequences of our decisions. If I sounded judgemental, it was of the statement, not a personal evaluation.

Posted by: Curtis at February 8, 2006 12:32 AM

---

For what it's worth, as a guy who used to blog but lost the time and intiative to do it right, I am willing to give Harper the benefit of the doubt. The optics aren't great, but I don't think Harper did this out of crass political opportunism. I see the arguments about calling byelections for MPs wanting to cross the floor and for not appointing someone to Cabinet who is not an MP, and they have valid points. But Harper is not going against his principles... he even said in the CBC Town Hall meeting during the campaign that he didn't see any good ideas that would solve these issues. In the meantime, people are seriously over-reacting here. Let's let this cabinet and government work... I'm confident that Harper and the Tories will do a good job, and that this supposed serious controversy will soon be forgotten.

Posted by: Jason M at February 8, 2006 12:39 AM

---

Guys,

It is wrong to run as a Liberal and then, two weeks later, switch to the Conservatives (presumably for a cabinet post). Isn't it?

It is hypocritical to criticize Belinda for crossing the floor, and then accept Emerson. Isn't it?

Seems pretty simple to me.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 8, 2006 01:27 AM

---

Isn't it great to hear all the Liberal BS being replied here about how the country will benefit from such decisions. How great Harper is to pay a price to ensure all areas of Canada is represented.

Wait up - Harper is looking to the next election - appoint people from areas that he hopes will give him a majority.

It has nothing to do with what is best for Canada but what helps Harper gain power - I think the Conservative blogs use to expose Liberals when that did that. But now it time for Conservative power and all Conservative blogs must now act like the Globe & Mail and do their best to show that Harper has done something great for Canada.

Harper himself said on National TV that no one is to be apart of his Cabinet unless he is elected to Parliament – just over 2 weeks ago – now he appoints someone to the Senate and Cabinet.

I did know that Canada was so fragile that unless someone from Vancouver is in the Cabinet then somehow Canada itself is harmed.

Posted by: Gary McHale at February 8, 2006 01:56 AM

---

I think Greg Weston's Ottawa Sun article is worth reading:

http://ottsun. canoe. ca/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2006/02/06/1428845.html

"It is not by accident that Harper has given the three most lucrative spending pots to Quebec ministers — public works, industry, and transport and infrastructure."

Hmmm, interesting point, nothing like having the fox watch the henhouse.

But I think Greg Weston hits the nail on the head with his final line:

"Whatever Harper may have won with his cabinet manoeuvres, he has taken a hit in respect."

Posted by: tomax at February 8, 2006 03:02 AM

---

To quote ( with his kind permission ) from Canadian and FReeper Clive:

So long as the Province of Quebec is adament that the Senate not be converted to a body that is equal, effective and elected, And so long as the Senate remains a body packed with Liberal flacks, Then Harper has every right to appoint this own choices as Senators. The Liberals were invited to submit the last vacant Alberta Senate seat to the electorate and they declined so to do and appointed a Liberal. Moveover it is clear that there is at least one Liberal Senator from Alberta who intends to frustrate Harper's legislative intentions. And this is not the first time in Canada's history that an unelected person has been appointed to Cabinet or the first time that someone has been appointed to the Senate in order to be appointed a Minister of the Crown. It is time that we Conservatives stop fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.Thank you for placing this in perspective.I've seen this argued all over the map at blogs like Small Dead Animals and Angry in the Great White North.

Posted by: backhoe at February 8, 2006 06:00 AM

---

Suppose for a minute that PMSH thinks it might be a good idea to put some focus on the Senate by generating some interest in the Senate Question Period. Anyone think that putting an unelected Senator in charge of one of the largest gov't dept's might just accomplish that?

Nothing like getting a little media attention to highlight what the Senate is (or isn't) all about. Will be interesting to see how many of the Liberal hacks will show up for Senate meetings when the spotlights are on.

Posted by: DC In YOW at February 8, 2006 07:15 AM

---

I'm standing between your two hills Steve. I didn't like the move but geez... A little perspective! I'm not going to grab the torch and pitchfork and call for Harper's head either. Time to move on.

Posted by: The Good Fight at February 8, 2006 07:23 AM

---

Idealistic conservatives (not an oxymoron at all) must give Harper and the new minority government some slack in the difficult decisions that will need to be made during the next 18 months. The quality and competence of every member of the governing team will be more important than anything else if Harper is to have a chance to turn the critical wounds inflicted on the country by both the Liberals and past Conservatives around.

Stephen Harper has inherited a minority government sitting on top of a vast, gargantuan Liberal-appointed and beholden bureaucracy with a vast population of Canadians utterly dependant on Liberal partisan contract-letting largesse spanning an interweaving web across every aspect of the nation. How else do you spend 2 billion on a simple gun registry? How else do you spend 8 billion annually to keep only native people in substandard living conditions and isolated poverty? You do it to maintain the Liberal-dependant bureaucracy and contract holders.

Harper and a small band of Cabinet Ministers are now sitting on top of this heap with a minority government, perhaps for 18 months, and the Liberal-leaning bureaucracy at every level knows this. Recall the bureaucracy’s leaks sniping Mulroney’s kick at the can.

Given this tenuous reality, it is vital, absolutely vital, that every single Cabinet Minister is ‘the best person for the job’. Under such stringent conditions, merit must top ‘politics’ in every appointment, despite the fact that all the media talks about is ‘political’ sham considerations. Is it really more important to have a less competent minister from the Maritimes, than a more competent minister from Quebec?

Each Cabinet Minister is sitting on top of a vast, bloated, feather-bedded, federal bureaucracy whose comfort zone is a return to Liberal one party state governance. Each Cabinet Minister is like a new General trying to lead an army created by his enemy in a new direction. This new Conservative minority government is dealing with a very difficult situation where the troops they depend on to lead towards the new direction have too often been promoted on Liberal ideological grounds, rather than the merit principle. There is nothing a bureaucrat promoted for ‘brown nosing’ fears more than the merit principle.

Idealistic conservatives must keep this reality in mind when making judgments about the difficult tasks Harper now faces. Governance is 80 percent about the colossal bureaucracy, and when a new government takes over the bureaucracy of a former government in a nation which has been a one party state for most of its history, the competency of the Ministers chosen to lead this historical task is paramount.

Posted by: brock at February 8, 2006 08:17 AM

---

Idealistic conservatives must keep this reality in mind:

What exactly must 'Idealistic Conservatives' keep in mind – that your words mean anything? Do you think anyone really cares whether Harper gets a Liberal to cross the floor? If anyone thinks that is the issue they have missed the point completely.

What Harper did in a few minutes was to going against the views of he party – Nov 2, 2005 the Conservatives introduced an anti-floor crossing bill. Harper has told half his elected MPs that their views don't count – since half of them voted for a NDP bill against floor crossing. On the 1st day Harper has demonstrated, regardless of his words, that they are the new Liberal backbenchers who are to sit quietly and do nothing but say and vote what Harper tells them.

Harper has shown that he doesn't care about the 82% of the people who voted against him just two weeks ago in Vancouver. Harper has shown that after 12 years of hard work by grass roots people that their views don't count as well.

Harper stated in Quebec – to Quebecers – that no unelected people to parliament can sit in HIS CABINET – the tape was replayed last night on TV. Therefore, Harper has demonstrated that HIS own WORD don't count.

Yes, it is a minor issue if you look at the point of a Liberal crossing the floor. But on the point of truth and honesty in Government it is major.

I guess this web site is correct – 'idealistic conservatives' who believe in honesty government must learn that all parties are the same – the only important point is to ensure the Conservatives have power.

Thanks for the lesson.

Posted by: Gary McHale at February 8, 2006 08:39 AM

---

Several blogs have stated that Idealistic conservatives must keep this reality in mind:

What exactly must 'Idealistic Conservatives' keep in mind – that your words mean anything? Do you think anyone really cares whether Harper gets a Liberal to cross the floor? If anyone thinks that is the issue they have missed the point completely.

What Harper did in a few minutes was to going against the views of he party – Nov 2, 2005 the Conservatives introduced an anti-floor crossing bill. Harper has told half his elected MPs that their views don't count – since half of them voted for a NDP bill against floor crossing. On the 1st day Harper has demonstrated, regardless of his words, that they are the new Liberal backbenchers who are to sit quietly and do nothing but say and vote what Harper tells them.

Harper has shown that he doesn't care about the 82% of the people who voted against him just two weeks ago in Vancouver. Harper has shown that after 12 years of hard work by grass roots people that their views don't count as well.

Harper stated in Quebec – to Quebecers – that no unelected people to parliament can sit in HIS CABINET – the tape was replayed last night on TV. Therefore, Harper has demonstrated that HIS own WORD don't count.

Yes, it is a minor issue if you look at the point of a Liberal crossing the floor. But on the point of truth and honesty in Government it is major.

I guess if web site are correct – 'idealistic conservatives' who believe in honesty government must learn that all parties are the same – the only important point is to ensure the Conservatives have power.

Thanks for the lesson.

Posted by: Gary McHale at February 8, 2006 08:46 AM

---

Angry, add ChuckerCanuck to your list.

http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com/

In the comments, he says that La Presse called Harper's move "audacious."

Posted by: Jeff Matychuk at February 8, 2006 08:53 AM

---

Angry, add Canadianna too.

http://canadianna.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Jeff Matychuk at February 8, 2006 09:09 AM

---

Guys, I repeat,

It is wrong to run as a Liberal and then, two weeks later, switch to the Conservatives (presumably for a cabinet post). Isn't it?

It is hypocritical to criticize Belinda for crossing the floor, and then accept Emerson. Isn't it?

Seems pretty simple to me.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 8, 2006 09:16 AM

---

Nice list. Stephen Taylor, Kate Macmillan, an American, and a bunch of third-tier blog nobodies.

Posted by: thickslab at February 8, 2006 09:53 AM

---

You know, ever since the Reform Party was born, I had the feeling that Reformers, Alliancers, Conservatives, whatever...they were never interested in reforming democracy, bringing in ethics and accountability or any of that.

I always suspected that they were actually fed up with government largesse being concentrated in Quebec and Ontario. Essentially, they wanted their turn at the trough, the opportunity to take care of their friends and cronies for a change. Given the opportunity to form a government, they would behave in exactly the same way as the ones they denounced.

Sad to say, but I was 100 million percent right.

The disgusting thing isn't Stephen Harper's behaviour. He's a politician, saying what needs to be said then doing what he feels like doing.(you can't blame a scorpion for stinging you)
The really shameful behaviour is on the part of bloggers and the like who screamed at the top of their lungs that if we elected the Conservatives, we'd get an honest and ethical government. Now that they are faced with the fact that their party is just as corrupt and cynical as the Liberals, the ethics go in the back pocket, the bloggers rub their chin and furrow their brow and go "Despite the fact that Stephen Harper is a lying cynical sh*tbag, I like this pick...it's the right move." Thanks for doing nothing to advance our democracy.

Meet the new boss....

Posted by: Dave at February 8, 2006 10:12 AM

---

Using much of the same logic, what a coup it would be if Harper could now recruit Paul Martin to be Finance Minister!

Think about it. His party under his leadership won the second greatest number of ridings, he's been exonerated by Gomery, he was widely respected by Canadians as a Finance Minister, and, best of all...

He was against the GST before he was in favor of it!

Posted by: Drained Brain at February 8, 2006 10:21 AM

---

brilliant move - ha so was adscam!!!!

Posted by: george at February 8, 2006 11:03 AM

---

Ya can add alsocanadian to yer list. Check out "Expert" Toms post: "Thoughts on the David Emerson Defection".

http://alsocanadian.blogspot.com/2006/02/thoughts-on-david-emerson-defection.html

Posted by: alsocanadian at February 8, 2006 11:13 AM

---

Hope you can add me to that list.

Thanks.

http://andweshallneversurrender.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Sébastien at February 8, 2006 11:19 AM

---

Harper believes Liberal ways are best

Mr. Harper had two options this week to ensure that the Conservative party could win a majority in the next election.

1) Follow in the foot steps of the Liberal party – appoint friends to Senate, bribe other party members with pay raises and power. The brain trust around Harper saw that people in ridings don't vote for your policies but to get local power. Thus appoint someone from Montreal and Vancouver to gain votes in next election.

2) Harper could have decided that people will be impressed when they see him bring in real policies that help them. Forget the political games – live up to your promises and people will respect that. People will vote because they realize that the new Government is not scary, is accountable and functions differently than the Liberal party.

The brain trust around Harper, including Harper, decided Liberal political games are the way to win votes – not policies.

Link to holding Conservatives accountable

Posted by: Gary McHale at February 8, 2006 11:20 AM

---

Count me in, albeit after some sober second thought after my initial reaction. As we all know, change in politics happens slowly, and the tories have to put as effective a cabinet in place as they can. All in all, this was a good move

skål!

Posted by: AlbertanFromBC at February 8, 2006 11:21 AM

---

Listening to the 'Conservative' wailing about these moves by PMSH, makes it all the easier to understand why Conservatives almost never WIN anything.

Either you are a Political party which wants to assume POWER so that you can actually DO something or you are a high-school debating society discussing how things should be in a perfect world.

Sure you shouldn't just go for the most corrupt and cynical approach as a matter of course, but the display of angst and self-immolation evident lately has been illuminating.

I salute this site and a few others for the ability to actually THINK about the consequences and keep their eyes on the prize, so to speak.

As to the rest, words of wisdom you urgently need to internalise ---- The Perfect Is Often The Enemy Of The Good !!

Posted by: dougf at February 8, 2006 11:26 AM

---

New Development:

The liberal party wants its money back.

I heard on the radio news this morning, that the liberal party riding association wants Emerson to return $95 000 because the people who gave that money, donated it to elect a liberal, not a conservative...

Maybe they have a point there. One certainly could argue that the voters voted for the man not the party. But the partisan donors probably gave the money to the association in order to elect a liberal. So perhaps this is a consequence of crossing the floor. Return campaign funds to the party that's being left behind.

I wonder if its too late to collect from Belinda.

Posted by: Curtis at February 8, 2006 11:26 AM

---

Johan i Kanada
"It is wrong to run as a Liberal and then, two weeks later, switch to the Conservatives (presumably for a cabinet post). Isn't it?"

"Wrong"? If I was a Liberal or NDP liberal voter in that riding, I would feel completely burned.
If my vote was made to continue advancing my left-wing agenda by means of the democratic process, (and the voting results of that riding overwhelmingly suggest that was the case in this riding), and then the democratic process was squashed by this turncoat. Then yes, running as a Liberal and switching is wrong. John, you have a solid point here.

“It is hypocritical to criticize Belinda for crossing the floor, and then accept Emerson. Isn't it?”

Here is where the standard Liberals reasoning breaks down.
Belinda’s defection would then be wrong by the same reasoning as above, and the Liberal Government should have fallen at that point.

Emerson’s defection did no artificially prop up a stumbling, scandel-laden government.

Belinda and Em are apples and oranges in regards to the implications of their switch-a-roo.

But the ethics of their switch-a-roos are both in question, as far as I am concerned

Let’s face it.
Since the liberal types are no longer in Federal power, the only tool of discussion is this thread is that the conservatives are just as bad as themselves, and that makes the conservatives “hypocrites”.

What a lousy starting point for liberals to find themselves in.

And liberals apparently have nothing else to offer.

Posted by: Pete at February 8, 2006 12:11 PM

---

Pete:

Let’s face it.
Since the liberal types are no longer in Federal power, the only tool of discussion is this thread is that the conservatives are just as bad as themselves

--but they are, aren't they? Look at how they behaved their very first day in power.

and that makes the conservatives “hypocrites”.

--ummmm, yes it does. When you engage in behaviour that you previously denounced, you're a hypocrite.

What a lousy starting point for liberals to find themselves in.

--What a lousy starting point for a conservative government to find themselves in.

And liberals apparently have nothing else to offer.

--Neither do the conservatives, judging by their "business as usual" strategy.

Let's face it: Since the Conservatives came into power, the only thing they've accomplished is to behave exactly like the corrupt, power mad liberals, and that makes the conservatives hypocrites.

What a lousy starting point for Conservative supporters to find themselves in: turn your back on the party you supported for years, or turn your back on your supposed principles.

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 8, 2006 12:34 PM

---

Ted: you quote Stephen Harper in an attempt to expose him as hypocritical on Senate reform (comment at February 7, 2006 04:36 PM). What this speech by Harper does expose is that he is a realist who has been converted to incrementalism. In the speech that you cite he said, "the Liberal position of all-or-nothing reform, of no change until everything is changed, is designed to take us nowhere." In Harper's appointment of Fortier, there has been no indication that Senate reform is no longer important. In fact, it was made clear that Fortier's appointment was temporary. This is probably the first time in our history that a Senate appointment has been made on a temporary basis. Our whole system of governance wasn't changed overnight, just because the Conservative Party won the election. There has to be a program of incremental change while continuing to work within the current system, otherwise there is no hope that we will see the changes we desire.

Posted by: dragev at February 8, 2006 12:41 PM

---

You can add me to your list Steve.

Posted by: canadianna at February 8, 2006 12:45 PM

---

I was a rally in Quebec when Harper said, "If you want Ministers from Quebec, you have to elect them"

That was about 3 weeks ago.....

Posted by: Michael at February 8, 2006 12:48 PM

---

Just out of curiosity, how long do you have to serve in the Senate to collect a full pension? Seems to me that this could be a backdoor handout...

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 8, 2006 12:56 PM

---

Adler nailed it today:

------------
The first rule of politics is that if you have to explain it, you're losing. The second rule of politics is that if you are trying to tell the faithful that you are a chess player and they are just checker players, you're losing.

[Harper], your messaging monkeys will tell you that you're a strategic thinker and your frustrated troops cannot spell "think."
------------

Angry, sounds to me like you're telling the upset Conservative faithful they're checker players, and you, Harper, and your conservative blogger buddies are the chess-masters.

Spare us. If this was a Liberal gag, you guys'd be up in arms, 100% guaranteed. Partisan blinders, indeed.

Posted by: Ade at February 8, 2006 12:59 PM

---

Maybe it's "keep your friends close but your enemies closer"? I for one, for example, would want to keep a close eye on known weasels like Belinda. Maybe Harper knows something we don't?

Then again, I'm American so what do I know, we spend all our money on beer and popcorn (except I hate popcorn so you know where my money goes).

Posted by: Jay at February 8, 2006 12:59 PM

---

Dave
Is that all you got?

Conservatives, on their first day, are as bad the Liberals?

Keep going that direction, my friend. You not making any converts to liberalism with that arguement.

Posted by: Pete at February 8, 2006 01:12 PM

---

You can add AlsoCandian

Posted by: pale at February 8, 2006 01:19 PM

---

Pete

What else do I need? On their VERY FIRST DAY the tories are already turning their back on their principles. Let me repeat that for you: ON THEIR VERY FIRST DAY!!!!

Just out of curiosity, how many converts do you think the conservatives have gained since Monday?

And as an FYI, I was hoping with all my heart for a conservative victory in this last election. I was seriously hoping for a much needed injection of ethics and principles into our Parliament. Oh well...

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Pete at February 8, 2006 01:19 PM

---

Oops, that last post was from me, not Pete. no need to add schizophrenia to his list of problems...

Posted by: Dave at February 8, 2006 01:23 PM

---

Steve...You can add me to your list...wait I changed my mind take me off...Oh on second thought put me back on, I want to appear smarter than I really am.

Meet the new hypocrite......

Posted by: Libertarian Ron at February 8, 2006 01:51 PM

---

This might have been said but I would reiterate that the Prime Minister has every right to appoint whom ever he wants to his cabinet and that he would be obligated to surround himself with the best most capable people willing to do the job. Politicians have no business in government. I would welcome more intelligent unelected capable people with real leadership ability over popularity contest winners any day.

Posted by: Momorider at February 8, 2006 01:53 PM

---

Steve,

You can add me, Hatrock's Cave, to your list in reluctant support of these appointments. I make several points about this on my blog.

Posted by: Hatrock at February 8, 2006 01:54 PM

---

Payback is a bitch even if you have to compromise your supporters, party members, ethics, election platform and electorate.

All you bloggers jumping on Captain Janke's leaky tub are just showing how whimpy and spineless you really are.

Meet the new hypocrite...

Posted by: Libertarian Ron at February 8, 2006 02:12 PM

---

Stephen Harper

On his first day in office showed Canadians he is a liar devoid of integrity and willing to turn his back on principles to gain political power

In short he is a good old fasioned true blue canadian politician

Sadly...

We are not making this up

Alberta it is time to go

Posted by: Buck Nekkid at February 8, 2006 02:17 PM

---

Dave
I personally don't like how both situations, Belina or Dave's, was handled by either party. It was not fair to the voters in either riding.

But one day of the Conservatives doing exactly what the Liberals did, (but without the propping up of a teetering scandal plagued government as a direct result of the turncoat)…

…does not equal the 12+ years of Liberal scandals and criminal mis-spending of millions of taxpayers dollars that got them thrown out of office.

Not by any weigh scale.

What is this double standard? Why are Conservatives are to be held to the perfect high moral plateau? Should the Liberals have called an election at their first hint of hypocrisy, breaking their own standards put forth in the 1993 election campaign?
Shouldn’t have Dalton McGuilty resigned his first week at his first of many broken promises?

Posted by: at February 8, 2006 02:22 PM

---

Broken promises... it s tough one... I think if someone has to break a promise, they should get out in front of it, and tell people that this promise can't be kept for some reason... Like Bill Clinton, Remember his Tax Cut broken promise speach from his first term?

I think Stephen Harper wanted to have a shock and awe campaign with his cabinet, and to an extent he has been succesful. But, he should have a press conference and explain the rationale of the instant-temp senator.

I think we all need to chill, and see how things play out from here. I think it will all work out.

Posted by: Curtis at February 8, 2006 02:34 PM

---

Dave
I personally don't like how both situations, Belina or Dave's, was handled by either party. It was not fair to the voters in either riding.

-Agreed

But one day of the Conservatives doing exactly what the Liberals did, (but without the propping up of a teetering scandal plagued government as a direct result of the turncoat)…

…does not equal the 12+ years of Liberal scandals and criminal mis-spending of millions of taxpayers dollars that got them thrown out of office.

--No but it's a good start, and judging by the start, do you really wanna give em 12 years?

Not by any weigh scale.

What is this double standard? Why are Conservatives are to be held to the perfect high moral plateau?

--Because they crowed long and loud about integrity and ethics. "Just give us a chance..." They put themselves on that plateau.

Should the Liberals have called an election at their first hint of hypocrisy, breaking their own standards put forth in the 1993 election campaign?

-- Yes they should have.

Shouldn’t have Dalton McGuilty resigned his first week at his first of many broken promises?

--yes he should have.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea why we have elections and debates anyways. Everyone lies. And none of us care. At least not when it matters. Ask Sheila Copps and the bright lights in Hamilton who had a terrific opportunity to put some teeth in their votes.

IMHO: Politicians should be forced to debate and campaign while attached to polygraphs. What other solution is there?

Posted by: Dave at February 8, 2006 02:36 PM

---

Does anybody know about this:

"One Conservative MP who tabled a private member's bill in the last Parliament -- Ontario's Helena Guergis -- told reporters she planned to raise the issue again with colleagues. Her office was set to issue a press release yesterday reaffirming her support for anti-crossing legislation. That was before Harper made her parliamentary secretary to none other than Emerson yesterday afternoon. The press release was not issued. She was bought off. (comment by sinki_sam at February 8, 2006 07:39 AM on the Captain's Quarters post, Harper Includes Surprises In His Cabinet)"

Posted by: dragev at February 8, 2006 02:47 PM

---

As the world turns....

Can we move on now? Post some new news to pontificate on?

Posted by: Curtis at February 8, 2006 03:20 PM

---

Hey, sure, take Emerson. If you like his quality, we have lots of other talented qualified Liberal Cabinet Ministers who would be good.

If merit is the thing, Make Reg Alcock President of the Treasury Board again. He's only the second longest serving POTB of all time. He only brought back the Controller General.

If your team didn't have the talent to build thier own damn Cabinet, how could you have supported them in the election? You shouldn't have to borrow from the LPC talent pool.

Posted by: Bowie at February 8, 2006 03:38 PM

---

Uh Bowie, Belinda? Scott?....anyway, here's the Prime Ministers real reason for doing what he's done.

Posted by: Platty at February 8, 2006 03:52 PM

---

I can't beleive how many people are willing to sell Prime Minister Harper out after one day in power. He campaigned on 5 major promises and if he doesn't deliver on them we can complain.
We cannot complain if our childish views of politics are shattered because we were blind to the reallities that underly government.
Do liberal or NDP MP's sell out their constituents if they vote in favor of the other parties bills?
Did we expect a big magic broom appear and sweep all the problems that 12 years of liberal power have created? Please grow the f**k up. I am regretting ever getting into blogging if all I hear are ranting, whining turncoats and gloating lefties. ARGHH

Posted by: Hlyrad at February 8, 2006 04:19 PM

---

Hlyrad

I can't beleive how many people are willing to sell Prime Minister Harper out after one day in power.

--Considering that Harper himself sold out after one day in power (actually, right on the first day), it shouldn't be that unbelievable.

and btw, please let me know what kind of comments I should be typing so as not to drive you away from blogging. Poor dear... Goes onto internet message boards and is forced to see comments from people he doesn't agree with.

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 8, 2006 04:38 PM

---

Posted in the lion's den:

http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/2006/02/emerson-owes-96755.html#c113943423625617781

Posted by: anonymous at February 8, 2006 04:53 PM

---

Dave

"do you really wanna give them (Conservatives) 12 years?"

Yes
I will give anyone who wants to make smaller government 12 years or more.

...nice line on Hlyrad.
"and btw, please let me know what kind of comments I should be typing so as not to drive you away from blogging. Poor dear... Goes onto internet message boards and is forced to see comments from people he doesn't agree with."
I hope Hlyrad gets the point.

"Meeting the new conservative boss will always be better then a old liberal boss."
"Pete" Townshend

Posted by: Pete at February 8, 2006 04:55 PM

---

Dave said
"--Considering that Harper himself sold out after one day in power (actually, right on the first day), it shouldn't be that unbelievable."

How has he sold himself out? By making tough decisions that obviously would take heat? Usually when you sell yourself out you do it for short term gain with little regard for how it looks. I don't see that. I see long term gain and short term pain. Never did he say that he is apposed to floor crossing. So he didn't sellout there.

Appointing an un-elected minister to the senate temporarily: Not a sell out. If he did so without conditions I would agree.

"and btw, please let me know what kind of comments I should be typing so as not to drive you away from blogging."

I'm just saying that stating your opinion is not the same as crowing and pointing how you were right all along and how every one else who disagrees is obviously an idiot. You are entitled to your opinion but I don't need to hear you state the same drivel 20 times in one forum.
Lets put this issue to rest.
There are far more relevent issues. Like getting dinged by Dingwall, the current uproar over free speach, the threat to our soldiers in Muslim countries etc.

Posted by: Hlyrad at February 8, 2006 04:59 PM

---

Did everyone get that?? Hlyrad wants us to stop talking about this. So everyone, please move on to the subjects he's listed. Is there anything else we shopuld be devoting our attention to?

I await your orders.

Posted by: Dave at February 8, 2006 05:03 PM

---

Huh? Was this Emmerson thing something important? Or did we all forget that this is just politics?

Posted by: the bear at February 8, 2006 05:07 PM

---

I just wished everyone would grab a brain and stop and think before they put their mouth or keyboard into gear. THE REASON THE LIEBERALS ARE ALWAYS SO SUCCESSFUL IS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EAT THEIR YOUNG!!We have a young government that we agonized over and the first thing you all want to do is eat it. Get smart please!

Posted by: eliza at February 8, 2006 05:25 PM

---

Eliza, those of us conservatives who criticize the Harper moves -- specifically as it relates to Emerson, because it paralells the Stronach defection -- do so percisely because we don't want to become like the very Liberals we criticize who do the same thing.

I hate people who decide right and wrong based on the political stripe of the indivdual/party that stands accused of wrong doing.

A Tory defects to the Liberals and it's viewed as appaling; a Liberal who defects to the Tories has those who criticized Stronach -- such as yourself -- now saying about Harper and Emerson, "Well, I've given it some thought and I now change my mind ... I think defections without by-elections is okay now."

One of the main cries of those who criticized Stronachs move -- myself among them -- was that the people of Newmarket-Aurora were now being represented in Parliament by a party that finished second. "It's undemocratic!" they cried.

I'm just being consitent, Eliza. My principals, ethics and integrity won't have it any other way.

Eliza, there's a party for people like you ... the Liberal Party.

They'd welcome your support.

Posted by: Johnny at February 8, 2006 05:35 PM

---

Sigh. OK. Point taken.
Just a wee grumpy with all the negativity.
I have no right to dictate what we should talk about.
I just wish people would give things a chance before we label this Boss same as the old Boss.
My bit of utopionism.

Posted by: Hlyrad at February 8, 2006 05:36 PM

---

We've come out supporting Harper on this.

Posted by: Peter at February 8, 2006 05:47 PM

---

Yes, the Liberal constituency should get its money back, and it shouldn't take a court case to prolong this issue. Yes, a by-election date should be set for a year or so from now, and an announcement to that effect made presently will smoothe some of the justifyably ruffled feathers across the board. If the old PMO is relishing this, it gives cause to address it.

Posted by: brock at February 8, 2006 05:57 PM

---

Johnny,

You are absolutely right. We should be able to "expect better" from a CPC government.

Liberal tactics will backfire in the long run.

Someone suggested to schedule a by-election asap. That would be a great idea, and would defuse some of the ill will now pouring over Harper.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 8, 2006 06:23 PM

---

These two appointments are the lens all Harper's initiatives will be viewed through til the next election. This "one day story" has cannot go away or be made because it will always be remembered when Harper had a chance to do it differently, he didn't.

Posted by: Mike at February 8, 2006 08:42 PM

---

Johan:

Calling a snap election now, won't help Harper. He's shown himself to be every bit the crooked politician, and there's no putting that egg back together again.

Every single former liberal voter who swallowed hard and voted Conservative this time, had the same reaction: "Awww shit. Them too" This was the first time that a lot of these voters were going to put aside their political beliefs in order to punish a party that was corrupt and reward one that appeared virtuous.

After these cabinet appointments, do you really think any of those voters will vote Conservative again? Or will they say "The liberals may be corrupt, but the tories are corrupt AND I don't agree with a lot of their positions..."

Good luck forming another government, never mind a majority.

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 8, 2006 09:02 PM

---

I agree with what eliza said about Liberals not eating their young. I wrote this over at AC website:

Conservatives in Canada are like the Canadian judge at the Olympics. All the other judges gives the Canadian pair a 5.8 and our judge gives them a 5.6, just to prove to the whole fricken world that we are true ideal non-partisans.

PMSH is doing what he can with a slim minority that the people gave him to clean up government. If Canadians were looking for such a watershed change then why handcuff him and at the same time demand absolute reform.

Canadians are just as complicit in this as any one else. We get the government we deserve. Vote for a fragmented opposition in 93 and then complain when we want a change said opposition is inexperienced. PMSH goes out and gets the only governing experience he can find to help him run the country in the natural governing party and then we scream, " You should use the rookies to handle the most demanding file in government."

Peace- No FLQ coming out of the wood work any time soon.

Order- The reformation of crime prosecution and armed border guards that won't bolt on sight.

Good Government- Find the best people you can to help a rookie PM and Cabinet to steer through the rocky channels before heading out to sea.

Every Captain uses a harbor pilot in a strange port.

Posted by: Paul Valaire at February 8, 2006 09:24 PM

---

Can you friggin morons tell the difference between politics and business?

Everyone who works in the business world knows someone who has worked for a competitor. Companies are always trying to woo a star candidate away from a competitor. I walked across the street to a competitor for a much better job. It happens all the time. I can tell you that my old bosses were pissed I was leaving but guess what, It was my choice. IT WAS NOT ANY OF YOU FRIGGIN MORONS CHOICE TO MAKE.
Dave Emerson is a star candidate and made a choice, the offer was great and who would refuse a great offer.

You friggin morons are trying to tell Emerson it's your right to choose what he does for a career. NO DON'T THINK SO.

If the Liberal party is sinking like the Titanic, who wants to stay with the party. Who wants to stay if Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison are the leading leadership candidates.

Don't be suprised if other small "c" liberals cross the floor. They won't be offered cabinet positions since the cabinet is completed but they may ask to sit with a party that will govern Canada and will have some influence with their constituents.

You guys and gals are crying like your significant other left you for someone else. How can you be attached to someone you hardly even know.
TIME TO GROW UP.

Posted by: mikeh at February 8, 2006 10:19 PM

---

Would anyone agree that in some small way voters are somewhat responsible for not punishing this sort of behaviour in the past? Many elections have passed with very poor turn-out and very little choice other than to hold ones nose and vote, sometimes with very little courage or immagination.

Historically governments have been voted out by fed-up, angry citizens. I am in no way suggesting that politicians are blameless for taking advantage of our laws or us citizens. I just think that we have become apathetic and take for granted a right that should be treated worth it's full weight. We can't be taken advantage of if we stick together. Fool me once, twice, three times? Oh well? We live in a culture where nice guys finish last and ethics are a thing of the past.

Posted by: Cheri at February 8, 2006 10:27 PM

---

I agree mikeh. Martin offered emerson a position of power and brought him into politics. Emerson is not a professional politician and he entered politics to work for under the fiscal plan of then prudent and steady Paul Martin. My understanding is that he is not a child of Trudeau and more of a Pearsonian/BC Social Credit type of business man.

Using your business adaptation he had a "contract" to work under Martin and what he was offering to bring from his small c conservative form of governance.

Then Martin has a melt down in office, tacks to the left and when he loses the election he quits. The contract was broken by Martin and if the good voters of Vancouver are upset they should be at Paul Martin. He is the one who has cut and run on all his star candidates that have one and lost (Ken Dryden, Belinda, Brison, Mark Garneu.......) He lures all of these people to the "Paul Martin Liberals" and in his first defeat as PM he cuts and runs and says, "Sorry to bail on ya, have fun with whatever wing-nut lefty takes over the party."

Posted by: Paul Valaire at February 8, 2006 10:55 PM

---

Then, Dave ("...meet the new boss") and Ted (Cerberus), I assume conservatives can count on your support when the Harper government introduces legislation to (A) mandate by-elections in party-switch cases; and (B) mandate elected senators.
No, didn't think so.
[The remainder of this comment has been censored by its author.]

Posted by: bob at February 8, 2006 11:04 PM

---

"Would anyone agree that in some small way voters are somewhat responsible for not punishing this sort of behaviour in the past? Many elections have passed with very poor turn-out and very little choice other than to hold ones nose and vote, sometimes with very little courage or immagination."

Can you blame them Cheri? I tried to believe in our political system and there is no system to believe in. Many people feel the same way. And nothing will be done.

Posted by: Lew at February 9, 2006 12:06 AM

---

A political party needs power to survive...democracy must suffer as a result. We are all idealists to believe otherwise.

Posted by: Lew at February 9, 2006 12:09 AM

---

You can add me to the list.

I'm not in the "it was a brilliant move" camp..I'm more in the "it was a smart move for both sides" camp.

I am 93% sure why Emerson crossed...
http://www.unsolicitedadvice.ca

Posted by: JL at February 9, 2006 12:38 AM

---

There is a great deal of explaining and rationalizing and trying to convince angry Conservatives that Harper's choices are "the right thing".

Charles Adler hit the nail on the head:

"The first rule of politics is that if you have to explain it, you're losing"

Here's another apt quotation:

"You can't polish a turd"

Look. I supported Harper. Still do; I think he's Canada's best hope to turn around the 13 lost years of liberal rot. I'm confident he'll make some pretty good strides on his Five Priorities. I'm not so disillusioned as to want to turn my back on Harper & the CPC because of this.

However.

All support notwithstanding, Harper's credibility has taken a hit with these appointments. From this point onward, Harper cannot reclaim his spot on the high ground. That's a fact, Kiddies. And no amount of justification or rationalization changes it, or helps these appointments pass the smell test.

Right out of the gate, Harper pulled the stunt that had Conservatives screaming across the country when Stronach turned traitor. Yeah, the optics of Emerson aren't quite as bad... but they're still bad. And the Fortier appointment also flies in the face of Harper's supposed desire to elect senators.

Yes, yes: everybody has done it for ages. But Harper was the one pushing for senatorial changes and elected senators.

Conservatives would be nuts to yank their support from Harper because of these two moves; somebody above made an apt analogy about not wanting to "eat our young". And, since Harper's likely figured that early in the campaign is the time to move the pieces on the board, when he'll have the benefit of doubt & the media frenzy will die long before the next election.

But how many liberals or others gambled & voted CPC in the hopes of seeing real change in government, only to be shocked by this move, & perhaps driven back to their original parties in the next election? Time will tell, depending on what Harper can accomplish in the interim... and on what other surprises he has for us. I really hope this is the worst of them.

When Stronach turned traitor last spring, I felt incredibly sorry for the Conservatives who gave their personal time and money to support her running as a Conservative, only to be sh@t on when she crossed the floor. I volunteered for my (failed) CPC candidate in the January campaign, and I know how I'd feel if he were elected and jumped ship.

I feel just as sorry for the Vancouver liberals who did likewise to support Emerson.

mhb23re
(email is above username at Google webmail service)

Posted by: MHB at February 9, 2006 01:05 AM

---

Many poeple seem to be forgetting, not hearing or ignoring (or maybe not believing) that Harper said the Senate Post was temporary until the next election.

Posted by: Cheri at February 9, 2006 01:33 AM

---

Cheri:

What Harper said or promised is of secondary importance.

He also promised he'd do things differently than the corrupt and weary liberals, too... but his out-of-the-gate appointments will encourage the perception that nothing has changed.

And perception becomes reality for most people. That's why detailed explanations and damage control are often ineffective.

mhb23re

Posted by: MHB at February 9, 2006 01:52 AM

---

MHB; the title of Deb Gray's book popped into my head yesterday. I never quite understood it, didn't need to, until now. "Never Retreat, Never Explain, Never Apologize". When you consider this week in politics, it has some merit. I suspect it's a code all politicians live by.

Another person that popped into my head today was Ralph Klein. As much as I don't like him or his way of doing things, I have to give him some credit and some respect that he had a tough job, the guts to stick it out and in the end it wasn't too terribly disasterous.

Posted by: Cheri at February 9, 2006 02:21 AM

---

Cheri: Harper is the same as the rest. Forgot about his oft-repeated theme: No unelected member will be in my cabinet. And to appoint a Senator too!
I do not envy the Tory MPs out West.

Better luck next time Steveo.

Posted by: Lew at February 9, 2006 02:53 AM

---

MHB: Nice post. Add a lot of grassroots Tories who expected a little better to your list. Some of us have principles, unfortunately the new Conservatives have used them for political advantage. Some of us still think that is wrong, regardless of party affiliation.

Posted by: Lew at February 9, 2006 03:00 AM

---

I've skipped to the bottom to point out that I am "on the fence" i.e. I'll give SH six months before determining whether or not I agree.

While that is not a whole-scale endorsement, I refuse to bash someone who is playing the cards dealt him.

Posted by: Candace at February 9, 2006 03:02 AM

---

Cheri:

I'm certain those words are the de facto unofficial motto of all politicians. They likely choose their times of apology very carefully, else they'd be apologizing most of the time, as somebody is always steamed...

Also, infrequent apologies lend the image of sincerity to the deliverer (Paul Martin's Adscam "apology" to Canadians via special TV announcement, notwithstanding). And as some Hollywood type once coined, "Sincerity is everything. Once you can fake that, you've got it made!"

mhb23re

Posted by: MHB at February 9, 2006 03:11 AM

---

Now this is great! Throwing stones at his colleague:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=144a0584-979b-461a-879a-5ae6c532cfc3

Posted by: Michael at February 9, 2006 08:01 AM

---

I suppose you could throw my name on there, although I do understand the anger on the other side. Harper contradicting a major part of the CPC's stated platform in under 24 hours does put his more evangelical followers in a bad position.

Posted by: Cynapse at February 9, 2006 08:27 AM

---

And it keeps getting better. For all of you who have cast your principles aside because Emmerson is going to somehow resolve the softwood lumber dispute:

Questions are being raised about whether David Emerson, the newly appointed Trade Minister will be able to work on the softwood lumber file, the most pressing file in his department.

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.

Canfor is Canada's largest forestry company and one of the companies specifically named in the anti-dumping case initiated by the U.S. in the softwood dispute.

"As former president and CEO of Canfor Corporation, I have an entitlement to an unregistered pension plan, partially funded through a Retirement Compensation Agreement," Emerson's declaration of recusal states.

"In order to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest situation from arising, I have undertaken, in the exercise of my duties and responsibilities to abstain from any participation in discussions or decision-making processes involving direct dealings with Canfor Corporation, its subsidiaries and affiliates."

Man, oh man...

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 9, 2006 09:17 AM

---

Bob:

Then, Dave ("...meet the new boss") and Ted (Cerberus), I assume conservatives can count on your support when the Harper government introduces legislation to (A) mandate by-elections in party-switch cases; and (B) mandate elected senators.
No, didn't think so.

--Ummm, it looks like your mind reading skills could use a little polishing. Truth is I support both those ideas 1000%.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 9, 2006 09:23 AM

---

I have to laugh at the pro-Emerson pundits. What you're really saying is that it really is ok that there are NO principled politicians left in this country anymore. And we really shouldn't expect any more out of our politicians than sleazy behaviour. It's amazing how low the standards of public service have stooped under the last 12 years of Liberal govt.
Any army general will tell you that they can defeat a superior army even if they have a smaller army that has a higher morale. But once you ruin the morale of your troops you have a much harder row to hoe. Obviously the morale of the CPC ground troops has taken a hit for no real gain. Putting yet another Quebecer (an unelected one yet)in charge of Public Works is like putting a fox in the henhouse. That is where all the problems started - Quebecers running Public Pork Works. Duh! There were far more acceptable ways of handling the alleged nonrepresentation. The Mulroney sleaze lives on.

Posted by: rockyt at February 9, 2006 09:42 AM

---

It doesn't matter anymore which side you come down on wrt Emerson & Fortier.

This is much more distressing.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 9, 2006 09:44 AM

---

mikeh...I think its time you take your own advice to grow up.

If you have to leave an employer to get a better deal chances are that you did little to prove your actual worth to your former employer.

I see this ship jumping all the time. People usually leave for 25 cents more an hour because they think they're under-valued where they presently are. In actuality it's because they're running away from their own screw ups and want a fresh start only to get back on the same screw up treadmill.

I've stuck it out through thick and thin. As a consequence of that I have an incredibly generous compensation package as well as the respect of the CEO and my fellow employess.

PMS Harper squandered a golden opportunity and will pay the price...first impressions are the most lasting and this will be his undoing.

Don't blame me, I held my nose and voted Liberal!

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 9, 2006 10:09 AM

---

Holding your nose and voting Liberal shows only that you suspended your ability to think.

Anyone who votes for a party guilty of over $10 billion in revenues losses in more than 200 various scams is either uninformed [to be generous], or paralyzed by CBC *fear - Harper* propaganda.

If the Dingwall descision had been known before the election, the Liberal outcome would have been a more realistic 65 seats rather than the fear induced 103 seats. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 9, 2006 10:39 AM

---

rockyt; to be fair, there are in fact very few 'supporters' that are happy with the optics of this. Also to be fair Harper cut the # of trough feeders from 39 to 27. I think the general consensus is no-one is comfortable with this, but for the time being we're not going to get all bent out of shape about it and will wait it out.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Harper turns out to be a lemon I'll work just as hard to get him out as I did to get him in. Can Liberal voters of the last 12 years say the same?

Posted by: Cheri at February 9, 2006 10:42 AM

---

TonyG...Lets talk about thought suspension.

I knew the corruption dollar amount was staggering. I believe MSM is all about readership/viewership dollars and as a consequence pay little or no attention to it. I fear very little and Harper's CPCs (childish pitiful crybabies) fit the no fear category.

So why did I hold my nose and vote Liberal. I'm a Liberal at heart and believe it was Chretien that is at the center of all things smelly. I also believe Paul Martin is not to blame for the rot and is clearly the best choice to be the CEO of this country.

Lastly, I'm not a hypocrite and have a Captain's mentality towards a sinking ship.

Finally, do you really play guitar, if yes, what style?

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 9, 2006 11:08 AM

---

Well, add me to your list of blogging tories who have posted in support of both appointments!

http://uccatholic.blogspot.com/2006/02/defending-this-cabinet-conservative.html

Posted by: A. Carlton Sallet at February 9, 2006 11:10 AM

---

Well, I might have to change my mind on these appointments. After reading Chantal Hebert's reasoning on the two appointments, I can see how strategic the placements of the appointments are. I wondered why no Torontonian was included, they weren't needed. It's puts the Bloc in a tough place. Harper is the threat, but Quebecers want what they want, and don't like waiting. Duceppe can't be seen as obstructionist. And Jim Travers piece on Emerson's role in the lumber dispute and the ramifications of that. Sweet. Harper has managed to grease the liberal leadership pole pretty well,making it likely that nothing is going to happen on that front very quickly. I wondered why Martin hadn't just quit, he's hoping to fall back into power.

Posted by: Mike at February 9, 2006 11:41 AM

---

Add the following to your list...

http://www.liberal.ca/
http://www.ndp.ca/
http://www.blocquebecois.org/
http://www.greenparty.ca/

...who share your belief that this is, in fact, a brilliant move, and will remain so for quite some time.

Posted by: Ti-Guy at February 9, 2006 01:50 PM

---

Liberal Ron; you may not be a hypocrite and are certainly a good Captain, but I suspect you're a little niave when it comes to Martin and by extension Gomery. Did you believed Gretzky yesterday when he looked into the camera and clearly stated, he had "NO prior knowledge" of illegal betting?

Posted by: Cheri at February 9, 2006 02:04 PM

---

LiberalRon,

Nice comeback. I have been told where to go in some very concrete terms for less than that minor challange.

10 $Billion is a nationally published figure by a National party open to lawsuit. No protest or lawsuit, so I cautiously accept the amount as valid.

Chretien and the inner group are the guilty element and should be brought to justice.

I will be the first to say there are many honest, very bright and valued Liberals. They could not do much to report the frauds due to lack of decent Whistle Blower protection law. They would have lost everything includng the family home.

Sheri knows how politics work in Canada. When the absolute power of an old government has corrupted absolutly, you just vote the other guys in. When they get all their cousins and uncles in and things go bad again, then it's time to vote the Liberals back in.

Next time when it's time for a change.... Don't be a Captain.

Guitar? Blues mostly, Chet Atkins, Doc Watson, Knopfler, Los Indios Tabjaras, JJ Cale, Ry Cooder.
Thousands play better than I do. Doesn't bother me though. I can *ear* along to most anything now. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 9, 2006 02:55 PM

---

Did somebody say integrity? ethics?

OTTAWA (CP) - They w