Traitor!
In the struggle to oust David Emerson for the crime of representing the people who elected him, the tone has often gotten nasty. People have been arrested after pushing and shoving at sit-ins, for example.
As we all know, Emerson was elected by the people of Vancounver-Kingsway while running for the Liberals. He crossed the floor to join the new Harper cabinet, a move that has been endorsed by the premier of British Columbia and the mayor of Vancouver. Nevertheless, there are many people trying to force a new by-election.
One of those people is Manuel Pereda. He is not a political operator like anti-Emerson activist Kevin Chalmers, but works for a Vancouver renovations company.
Perhaps that explains Pereda's effort to meet Emerson half-way:
Emerson spoke briefly about the tone of his recent meeting with protester Manuel Pereda, which recently broke new ground in establishing a line of communication between the two groups.
"Mr. Pereda and I are in many respects not that far apart," Emerson said. "The issues are really more complex than most people really know about with crossing the floor... If you're going to not let people cross the floor then you are putting more power in the hands of the political party and is that truly a democracy?"
A constructive meeting? An effort to find a way to make those constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway who are angry realize they are still represented in Ottawa?
Then why this curious statement?
Both Manuel Pereda and the De-Elect Emerson Campaign have said that Manuel Pereda acted on his own in meeting with Emerson.
Pereda the traitor? The De-Elect Emerson Campaign is the operation run by Kevin Chalmers, a former Emerson campaign worker and a Liberal Party operator.
Apparently the problem was that Emerson had set a condition on the meeting with Pereda. Since Emerson has stated he is unwilling to resign, he felt any meeting on that topic would be a waste of time. But could there still be a useful discussion without getting into resignations?
Pereda thought so. Kevin Chalmers, on his website, makes it clear that any meeting with Emerson must focus on Emerson's resignation:
Recently, after being forced by the presence of national media to accept a constituent's meeting request, Emerson met with one of the many disenfranchised voters of this riding. Emerson only agreed to do so only on the condition that the voter, Manuel Pereda, vowed to not demand for his resignation.
The Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson finds this price of admission far too high.
And that's why Kevin Chalmers doesn't get a meeting, while Manuel Pereda has actually seen some progress, as reported on Pereda's website:
After the meeting, Mr. Pereda stated that he planned to abandon his demands for Mr. Emerson’s resignation, as the minister’s mind is set and Mr. Pereda prefers to use his energy to begin a broader, non-partisan debate on the electoral system. Mr. Pereda’s stance aims at opening the dialogue with all political parties and citizens groups to encourage the start of electoral reform debates. Mr. Pereda made it clear that his stance represents the view of only some of the Message in the Air supporters and that he will continue to applaud the efforts of other groups demanding a new by-election.
Amusingly, Pereda was also forced to highlight the schism in the anti-Emerson crusade (while at the same time trying to downplay it):
Members of the media have been asked to correct reports that were published stating that Mr.Pereda is still a leader of the Campaign to De-elect David Emerson. Mr. Pereda was one of the initiators of the CDDE but he is no longer directly involved in that campaign. Mr. Pereda still has De-elect Emerson signs outside his home because he supports the idea of keeping the issue alive until electoral reform debates get started. Mr. Pereda now chairs the Message in the Air Society.
One wonders if there were any fireworks at the meeting between Chalmers and Pereda. Did Pereda try to convince the true believers at the CDDE that his way was likely to pay dividends? Did Pereda leave, or was he given the bum's rush out the door?
Why is Kevin Chalmers being so dogmatic? Why won't he participate with Pereda in an effort to reform the electoral system in an organized and measured manner instead of relying on sit-ins and airplane stunts?
As Manuel Pereda said, he is interested in the "broader" debate. Chalmers is only interested in Emerson. For Chalmers, this is personal. When something is personal like that, it is either because that specific person has been seriously hurt (so this is about vengeance) or that specific person stands to gain tremendously by winning (so this is about fame and fortune). My gut tells me Chalmers thinks he has something to gain from taking Emerson down -- the fame and fortune motive. That's why he's not interested in the broader implications of electoral reform, and that's why he has no time for people like Pereda who aren't willing to stay focused on Emerson to the exclusion of all else.
The real question is, though, whether there are other people like Pereda in the CDDE who just want to have the same discussion Pereda had, and so can be pealed away from Chalmers.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Chalmers and his ilk resemble the WWII Japanese soldiers who hid for years in the jungle because they refused to believe the war was over.
Maybe some day these anti-Emerson folks will find legitimate work and get on with their lives. They're not just annoying, they are boring...
Posted by: Bruce at May 15, 2006 09:31 PM
Remember how, a hundred days ago, this was going to be a one-day story?
Posted by: Ed Minchau at May 16, 2006 01:17 AM
and to think it started in Vancouver, In Canada, with a de-elect protest that had 6 people, none from his riding, protesting outside his office with more media covering it then actual protesters... On our streets, In Canada, with video camera's...
I can say this because I drove by it on the way home from work and laughed about it as I drove past the protest...because unlike the retiree that was on the radio, the professional protestors that are on the doll, voicing there concern having riden down from the interior to voice their concern, I still work and pay taxes for their income that allowed him to protest, on our streets, in Canada....with my money....
ah yes, the unemployeds freedoms, what our hard earned tax dollars in Canada are paying for on our streets...
Posted by: MrEd at May 16, 2006 03:27 AM
In the struggle to oust David Emerson for the crime of representing the people who elected him, the tone has often gotten nasty.
Whoa here. I don't tolerate liberal lies and I certainly won't tolerate conservatives lying as it ruins our good name here.
Emerson would have represented those who elected him if he stayed as a Liberal. After all, that is how he ran. Please don't give partisan garbage here. If he stayed a Liberal until the next election, he would have represented those who voted for him. As it is, he is not representing any of them at this time.
Posted by: None at May 16, 2006 09:11 AM
Remember how, a hundred days ago, this was going to be a one-day story?
Yes, thats what is annoying about this. It was and it is. This is just the politcal equivalent to "white noise" It irritates me but helps some people go to sleep.
Posted by: Eric at May 16, 2006 09:27 AM
Remember how, a hundred days ago, this was going to be a one-day story?
Yes, thats what is annoying about this. It was and it is. This is just the political equivalent to "white noise" It irritates me but helps some people go to sleep.
Posted by: Eric at May 16, 2006 09:27 AM
"Emerson would have represented those who elected him if he stayed as a Liberal. After all, that is how he ran. Please don't give partisan garbage here. If he stayed a Liberal until the next election, he would have represented those who voted for him. As it is, he is not representing any of them at this time.
-Posted by None"
Whoa, that is soo wrong, so very wrong. Once elected you represent EVERYONE in your riding. The people who actually voted for you do not have a special right to the member-elect's solicitation. YOU ARE VERY VERY DANGEROUSLY WRONG!!!
Posted by: Eric at May 16, 2006 09:32 AM
This is part of the NDP strategy of out-flanking the Liberals on the left. The NDP are establishing themselves as more sanctimonious, more anti-American, more peace-loving, more enviromenatlly conscious, etc etc. All at a time when the Libs are leaderless, and not sure where to "plant their flag", as Ignatief said. But
Layton needs to do more than just rant and rave, he needs some kind of concrete action.
If Layton was any kind of negotiator like Harper, then he would arrange some kind of merger with the Green Party.
The appropriate punishment for all their criminality is for the Libs to be squeezed right off the federal poltical map. Harper has the killer instincts to do it but Layton is sorely lacking.
Posted by: Calgary Junkie at May 16, 2006 11:21 AM
Thanks for this interesting background on the subtleties among some in the anti-Emerson crowd.
Posted by: Joan Tintor at May 16, 2006 11:41 AM
Whoa, that is soo wrong, so very wrong. Once elected you represent EVERYONE in your riding. The people who actually voted for you do not have a special right to the member-elect's solicitation. YOU ARE VERY VERY DANGEROUSLY WRONG!!!
Yes, you do represent everyone. Read again, I just quoted Steve Janke here. Read the first sentence to this entry, then, get back to me.
Posted by: at May 16, 2006 02:07 PM
Whoa, that is soo wrong, so very wrong. Once elected you represent EVERYONE in your riding. The people who actually voted for you do not have a special right to the member-elect's solicitation. YOU ARE VERY VERY DANGEROUSLY WRONG!!!
Yes, you do represent everyone. Read again, I just quoted Steve Janke here. Read the first sentence to this entry, then, get back to me.
Posted by: None at May 16, 2006 02:09 PM
Anyways, what I meant in that post Eric, was that those people who voted for a Liberal member of Parliament were superceded and that's wrong, no matter what the circumstances. They've removed the democratic vote of Canadians. This is completly wrong. If it isn't considered wrong, we might as well not have any political parties and just have a set of names to vote for and let it be a free-for-all in Parliament.
The NDP protests this, they're just doing it for political gain because they would accept someone doing the same thing if they crossed over to them, but who would want to do that?
The libs were calling this different. Lying as usual basically because they suppported floor-crossing and never set any boundaries whatsoever.
I was hoping that the CPC would hold on to democracy here and what the voters decide, is what the voters decide.
Posted by: None at May 16, 2006 02:16 PM
I see in the Vancouver Sun today a little article titled "Emerson critic still dissatisfied" about Manuel Pereda. Basically an opportunity to bash Harper. This is the same paper that mentions that 2/3 of Canadians want some sort of gun registry, but fail to mention that 54% of Canadians want the run registry as it stands now to be abolished. Liberal lap dogs all.
Posted by: morison at May 16, 2006 04:09 PM
It is downright amusing reading how the defenders of Emerson's floor crossing sounds so much like the defenders of anything that the previous government did while they were in power.
To me this just proves that regardless of your political bent, the old adage that power corrupts politicians should be amended to read, "supporters of the party in power can be counted on to defend the policies of their particular party even though those same policies were ridicued when proposed by another political party".
In broad daylight, on Canadian streets, in political circles and coffeee shops that's the reality of politics in this country, pity, Eh?
Cheers
Posted by: Guardsman at May 16, 2006 06:48 PM
"It is downright amusing reading how the defenders of Emerson's floor crossing sounds so much like the defenders of anything that the previous government did while they were in power."
Politicians are given rules. So long as they follow these rules, they may use them to achieve their goals. I'm no expert, but I do know that in Canada, MPs are subject to rigid control by their party leaders. Floor crossing is one of the few ways an MP can exercise their own judgement.
Guardsman, you are claiming that power has "corrupted" the current government and its supporters because they have acommodated a floor crosser while in the past they criticised a certain floorcrosser who defected to their opponents. Last I heard, floor crossing is a legal right in the House. How is it corrupt to exercise a legal right? The critics of Stronach were, for the most part, criticising her motives, not the floor crossing.
Lose the hyperbole.
Posted by: Matt at May 16, 2006 08:30 PM
I thought this dead horse was already at the glue factory! You mean there's still a few around who want to flog it? Wow. That's..... pathetic.
Posted by: Mac at May 16, 2006 10:04 PM
Politicians are given rules. So long as they follow these rules, they may use them to achieve their goals. I'm no expert, but I do know that in Canada, MPs are subject to rigid control by their party leaders. Floor crossing is one of the few ways an MP can exercise their own judgement.
Matt, I appreciate your point of view here. I think that as voters we should allow MP's to leave their party, but not cross over to one. Become an Independent and then run for another party if they so choose in a by-election. Right now, bribes are becomming too common under the libs and then this one by the CPC.
Posted by: None at May 17, 2006 10:18 AM
One minor correction to your story; Kevine Chalmers is no longer associated with the campaign, at least publicly. As reported on CKNW, April 8:
"A vocal member of the De-Elect Emerson campaign has stepped aside. Kevin Chalmers, a former senior volunteer for Emerson's Liberal election campaigns and spokesperson for the De-Elect campaign , has decided to take a step back. Chalmers will be playing a role in various Liberal leadership candidate campaigns and wanted to ensure there was no conflict of interest in his roles. Mike Watkins has now taken over as spokesperson for the group."
Chalmers' exit explains why Campaign activity has fallen over the past month. However, his cover story sounds a bit far-fetched. There are other more plausible reasons for his departure.
One is that Watkins and Chalmers had begun to disagree publicly over strategy. Just the previous week, Watkins blasted Chalmers, on his daily anti-Emerson blog, for "grandstanding" at the Campaign's recent Olympic village protest.
Another would be the public outing of Chalmers in March as not even a constituent in Vancouver-Kingsway, a story which AFAIK you broke, Steve.
As always, thought you might like to look at:
http://tinyurl/huyld
Posted by: George Dance at May 17, 2006 05:29 PM
NEWS FLASH! Stephen Harper has just announced that he and twenty-five other MPs have torn up their CPC membership cards and crossed the floor to join the Liberals, under a deal that will see Harper remain as Prime Minister. Harper now says he will expand the gun registry, nationalize the oil industry, withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan, legalize marijuana and cocaine, and lower the age of consent. He also said that President Bush is a moron who can "kiss my ****." When asked whether he thought Conservative voters would feel betrayed, Harper said, "Get over it. They elected me to represent them, and that's what I'm doing."
Posted by: Aeolus at May 17, 2006 06:54 PM
Steve and Eric
NONE is correct. Emerson was elected as a liberal. He told the voters he was supporting the Liberal platform. That is why he won.
The next reason he is not representing the voters of his riding is that the Conservative platform only garnered 20% of the vote. 80% of the voters don't support what Emerson is now supporting. He was not elected to go to the highest bidder, he was elected to stand for certain principles, most of which happen to be left of centre. Left of centre is where 80% of his constituents are. There is no way he can represent his constituents politically from where he sits. Everything he votes for in Parliament will be against the wishes of the vast majority of his constituents so how can he be said to be representing them?
Posted by: steve d. at May 17, 2006 08:14 PM
Of course, those constituents who voted for representation in cabinet got what they voted for.
And so did those constituents who voted for an MP with the right to cross the floor. Which is to say, all of them.
Posted by: ebt at May 18, 2006 03:50 PM
Yes,exactly. Some of those who voted for Emerson (I'd say a rather high number in the Chinese-Canadian community) were voting for a cabinet minister, or at least a representative in government. Some of them voted for Emerson personally, for reasons from his business experience to his cleanness. Some - a rather large number, judging from the low Conservative vote - were Conservatives who voted for Emerson to keep the NDP from winning the riding.
It's preposterous to say that any of those voters felt outraged or betrayed by Dr. Emerson's defection.
Posted by: George Dance at May 20, 2006 02:55 PM
 
|
|
