"Actually, makes me wonder just how many Liberal government appointees over the last 13 years were certifiable idiots"

there's a good collection of them over in the department of environment... if you want to know the REAL reason the Liberal never did anything to meet Kyoto, and why Ambrose looked incompetant... That would be them... look at the envornmental record for the last 3 environment ministers... pathetic... it's not the ministers that have been the problem... it's thier underlings.

Posted by: Sierra at January 12, 2007 02:35 PM

---

"Note that Persaud is not a sitting MP, so he's not up for a cabinet post."

Note that not being a sitting MP doesn't preclude someone from being in Harper's cabinet, e.g. Michael Fortier.

Posted by: john at January 12, 2007 02:46 PM

---

"Note that not being a sitting MP doesn't preclude someone from being in Harper's cabinet, e.g. Michael Fortier. "

Or Jean Chretien's cabinet.e.g. Stephane Dion

Posted by: paulsstuff at January 12, 2007 02:54 PM

---

Spot on Steve.

The ones leaving the liberal party suggests the left wing of the party is purging the party with hardly any effort at all.

This started actually when Bucky tabled the SSM bill and we saw some socons in the LPC get a chilly reception within the liberal ranks. Pat O'Brien being the first to notice he wasn't welcome anymore.

Keep going liberals, soon all the centrist vote will feel comfortable with a conservative government.

Posted by: gimbol at January 12, 2007 03:03 PM

---

And just what kind of name-calling was Belinda Stronach subjected too?

Your in a glass house, Mr. Janke. You shouldn't be throwing stones. You do not have a moral highground here.

Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 12, 2007 03:18 PM

---

If the changes and deflections taking place within the liberal party are any indication, imagine what is happening among the electorate.

Despair and frustration among the liberal ranks will eventually cause many more to abandon the ship of fools.

Posted by: Alberta Born at January 12, 2007 03:22 PM

---

Interesting question about Stronach. If she had been the second or third person to quit, then it would have certainly lead me to consider a systemic problem within the CPC. Khan, LaPierre, Persaud -- that's a problem, I think. Also, none of those three are getting anything for their move -- no cabinet posts, for example. Stronach's situation turned out to be isolated, and almost certainly driven in part by a desire to realize some personal gain and an increase in power. I think there is a real difference here. The general stability of the CPC membership attests to that, Garth Turner notwithstanding. Remember that GT was tossed out.

Posted by: Steve Janke at January 12, 2007 03:50 PM

---

"You do not have a moral highground here."

Actually, I think he does.

The LPC couldn't define 'moral' or 'highground' to save their seats.

Now that PMSH has been in for awhile, people are noticing the huge difference in approach. The spell has been broken.

As for Stronach, she's been on the make for too long. She's a ditz. Just because her Dad's smart and a hard worker it doesn't mean she is.

Posted by: Selma at January 12, 2007 04:43 PM

---

Rattus Liberalis, like its better known and cuddlier cousin Rattus Rattus,
is a nonemetic species. One of the particular talents of Genus Rattus is its
ability to not vomit, which conveniently allows it to feast on its own young.

Posted by: neo at January 12, 2007 04:53 PM

---

I would not have thought this was a big deal, except for the Liberal reaction. Such a reaction suggests it is a bigger deal than it seems.

As for Stronach, the situation was entirely different for at least a couple of reasons. First, she was a sitting MP, not just a party offical. Second, it was a transparent deal to rescue the Liberals from a non-confidence vote--she sold her vote. Another distinguishing factor was her dumping Peter Mackay at the same time. If crossing the floor was just a policy decision, why dump Peter as a romantic partner? (I suppose the answer is obvious--he no longer suited her ambition.)

Posted by: murray at January 12, 2007 05:02 PM

---

Great , 3 in a week .In about 9 weeks , we will have a majority.

Posted by: Timothy Coderre at January 12, 2007 05:50 PM

---

Stronach is an idiot.

Remember her speech at the leadership convention where in a moment of "spontaneity" she announced that she was "throwing away the script" and then proceeded to read from notes?

There's a word for that: Idiot.

Lastly Murray, I'd add to your list that Stronach's was different because she attended the CPC election strategy conference two days before crossing the floor and took those plans to the Liberals with her. A little fact that the media ignores to this day.

Posted by: C ool Blue at January 12, 2007 06:39 PM

---

There is no doubt the Liberals are in worry mode.
They have lost a considerable amount of support, not just the members, they have many connections tagging along.

Mr. Persaud will have a good number of people following his lead as well. He's been a Liberal operative for a significant time and well known in his own Community.
He gave a pretty damning speech against his former Party.

As for Lapierre, the truth can't be told as is the Liberal way and the MSM will not be seeking it. He can get revenge if he was pushed, he has a forum with his political show on TVA.

It's interesting how they are playing Justin Trudeau's "possible" entry into politics,
just too coy by half.

Well we all know who the Dion Puppeteer is. No wonder poor Steffawn looks stunned and dazed, having his strings pulled in all directions at the whim of the Master.

Posted by: Liz J at January 13, 2007 01:43 PM

---

How can you tell the Liberals are really getting worried? Just listen to all the spin and immature ranting. A good source is Jason Cherniak's web blog. By the way, have you seen the latest poll by Robbins SCE Research of over 11,000 Canadians from December 27 to January 6? It has the Conservatives ahead of the Liberals 37.5% to 31.2%. I'm not sure how much stock to put in this poll, or the company. Perhaps it is just a case of wishful thinking. But perhaps the over-reaction of the Liberals regarding Mr Persaud says something of how they view this polling company's reliability.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 13, 2007 03:26 PM

---

One thing we do know, we can't count on the truth or the bare facts coming from the media who are in the know. They are in constant contact with their old Liberal pals, and paying for their own beer. That's another reason for their grieving.

When any member or party operative who comes from an Ethnic community jumps to the Conservatives, the Libranos know they have lost big time.
They deserve it. They have taken people for granted, to the point of patronizing for votes, giving them no credit for being astute citizens, fully aware of the corruption and snake oil salesman tactics of the Liberals.

Many of our immigrants are socially Conservative and are not pleased with the direction of the Liberal Left.

Posted by: Liz J at January 13, 2007 05:05 PM

---

It's rather interesting to see how Conservatives try to deal with the two switch's. Persaud is portrayed as almost "seeing the light" by switching to the CPC [ a party, by the way, created out of a lie. A fact Conservatives try to avoid. After all, Didn't MacKay get elected PC leader by promising NO TALKS with Alliance? ] and Stronach's switch...portrayed as opportunistic and "on the make (Selma)"
and done by "an idiot (C ool Blue)"

Strange how switch's away from the CPC are treated with derision, but switches to the CPC are hailed by Conservatives.

As for the " general stability of the CPC membership ", perhaps the saner elements were purged and went to the Liberals. After all, Rattus Conservatatus hides it true intentions behind a fair appearing exterior...but their true colours emerge when the light is shone on them.

Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 13, 2007 08:52 PM

---

The Lie-beral's are morphing into a party that will be further to the left than the NDP is, but they still carry the baggage of scandal, corruption, criminally organized behaviour and contempt for Canadians. When the next election happens we all should remind everyone of Stephanie's testimony before Gomery.

Posted by: Bruce Randall at January 14, 2007 12:35 AM

---

Stronach is proof that determined self-promotion in the absence of talent will put you into a losing situation. She's in one now.

It's not the switch, it's the reason for and timing of the switch. Good riddance. Ethics like that are much more suited to LPC.

The 'hidden agenda' is certainly creepy thus far. Too bad there isn't one, except in the minds of those who have been plundering this country and telling lies for decades and now find themselves cut off from the limitless supply of money.

I agree with Steve. As the Liberals have always counted on the ethnic vote, they should be wondering why ethnic ridings, especially in TO, are going Conservative, rather than throwing tantrums.

If I run a successful business and suddenly there is a slump and customers are disappearing, do I blame the customers or the other businesses?

Posted by: Selma at January 14, 2007 09:57 AM

---

"It's not the switch, it's the reason for and timing of the switch. Good riddance. Ethics like that are much more suited to LPC."

So tell me Selma...what was the reason and the ethics behind the creation of the Canadian Conservative Party of Canada (CCRAP)? MacKay PROMISED no talks with the Alliance. And what did he do? Broke that promise he did. Why should anyone believe what the CCRAP party, and their supporters, have to say?

What was the Ethics and Reason behind Persaud's switch? Maybe to suck up with the perceived party in power for the next few years? Maybe it its a Career move, rather than one of "ethics".

Party switching is always suspect. However, Janke et. al. seems to be saying that Persaud's switch is somehow more valid (or moral depending on the commentator) that Stronach's.

Somebody should tell Persaud that with Canadian's tired of the Liberals and the Liberals weighed down with scandal, the CCRAP party only managed a MINORITY government. Had this been a Progressive Conservative Party, I belive it would hvce been a Majority Government. Canadians don't trust Stevie Harper and his Republican-North party.

Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 15, 2007 01:10 AM

---

"Sigh!" Murry, Murry, Murry. Peter McKay has already addressed the issue regarding his promise. Yes, it was a promise made, to Mr Orchard and to the PC Party of Canada. Yes, this promise was broken, but this policy reversal was itself ratified by the grass roots of the party (I myself took part in that ratification), just as the Liberal policy reversal regarding the scrapping of the GST was itself ratified by the Canadian electorate in the 1997 election. I hope you are not trying to say that Mr Orchard should have had a veto over a democratic decision by the grass roots of a political party that he professed to be a loyal member of. Like the GST reversal, Mr McKay's decision is now a non-issue. Of course, since you apparently don't see it that way, it means that we can still use the Liberals' GST reversal against you.

With respect to why Canadians only elected a minority Conservative government, I am disappointed, but not overly surprised. Your heroes in the Liberal Party (I am not returning insult for insult) told so many lies and misrepresentations (the "Military in the Streets" advertisement was just the tip of the iceberg), that enough Canadians were fearful that there couldn't have been all that smoke without some fire. And, you are forgetting the outright lies told by your Liberal friends about the Free Trade Agreement in the 1988 election campaign (fortunately Canadians saw through those lies, as apparently even your party is grateful about since the FTA was expanded into NAFTA).

And, if you don't believe that people who are on the same political wavelength as you cannot spew venom along with the worst of NDP (and, yes, Tory) supporters, just re-read the second and last paragraphs in your post. I'll give you a clue - it is a double reference to the anacronym(sp?) of a political party that no longer exists.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 15, 2007 04:15 PM

---

I'll give you a clue - it is a double reference to the anacronym(sp?) of a political party that no longer exists.

---------------------
I realised this this morning. I did stick my foot in that on.

---------------------

Sigh!" Murry, Murry, Murry. Peter McKay has already addressed the issue regarding his promise. Yes, it was a promise made, to Mr Orchard and to the PC Party of Canada. Yes, this promise was broken, but this policy reversal was itself ratified by the grass roots of the party (I myself took part in that ratification)

------------------------

Sigh! Brian Brian Brian. So the Promise broken was whitewashed by the "Grass roots". The Problem is wider than it first appeared.

The CPC seems to want to appear to be more honest and "moral" than the Liberals. What is one to think when the party was based on a broken promise that was subsequently vetted by the "Grass roots". Were these grassroots all the conservatives involved, or just the ones associated with the Alliance?

Mr. McKay descision is not the non-issue you wish it to be. It shows that the CPC is no more honest or forthright than any other political party. It runs on political expediency.

This whole thread started with Janke crowing over Persaud's leap to the CPC. I merely pointed out that the reaction of the Conservatives was quite different (for a "more honest and moral party") from their reaction to Stronach leaping to the Liberals.

They both leaped..and from the looks of it it was for political gain.

The Liberal Party is not my party. But if you wish to persist in believng that, I can't stop you.

And...the CPC ran attack ads as well.

Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 15, 2007 08:35 PM

---

Murray:

My apologies to calling you a Liberal if you aren't. However, when you criticized the CPC for accepting a cross-over, while not criticizing the Liberals for doing likewise, or for THEIR hypocritical reaction to Khan's crossing,or even referring to the Liberals' crossings/reactions, you did give that impression. You strengthened that impression for criticizing a policy reversal by a Tory but ignoring Liberal policy reversals (the GST, remember?).

With respect to the PC grass roots, I had been a federal PC member since the mid 1970s, and stayed with that party right up until the merger with the Alliance. I had been to two general annual meetings (1981 & 1983), voting to support Joe Clark's leadership each time. I voted during both ballots of the leadership vote that saw Joe Clark return to politics (and yes, I voted for him on both ballots). I attended the delegate selection meeting for Calgary West for the delegates' vote on the merger, voting for successful pro-merger delegates. That you would even think it possible that the Canadian Alliance was the only party whose grass roots ratified the merger (see again the last line of your second paragraph) shows your complete and total ignorance of what happened during the merger. You also ignore my question as to whether David Orchard should have had a veto over the merger.

The difference in reaction to the mergers (Stronach v Khan and Persaud) all boils down to the circumstances of each. We all know what Stronach got out of it, a cabinet post. What have Persaud and Khan got out of it? Neither is a cabinet minister. Neither has gained anything. You'd have done better to mention Emerson. I might have agreed with you.

Finally with respect to attack ads, yes both parties ran them. The key difference (but not the only one) - the CPC's advertisements were sourced (ie a certain newspaper's headline from a certain date, Judge Gomery's report, etc). The Liberal Party's advertisements were not. And, again you ignore the "Military in the Streets" ad, which was not only unsourced, but an outright misrepresentation (as were, btw, 2004 ads which suggested that the Tories would make all abortions illegal, do away with ALL gun control - remember the ad which showed a gun pointing to the viewer?). Why do you think the "Military in the Streets" ad was supposedly pulled (there are reports - which I do question - that it nevertheless appeared for days in parts of Quebec and/or Ontario)? Why do you think that Paul Martin took the unusual step of apologizing for it? That you ignore these aspects of the Liberal ads only reinforces the impression that, despite your disclaimer, you are indeed a Liberal supporter. However, if despite all evidence to the contrary you are NOT a Liberal supporter, I again apologize.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 16, 2007 01:11 PM

---

As a follow up to my post, Murray, I should add that Peter McKay's promise to David Orchard was made BEFORE he became leader. It was from one leadership candidate to another. Therefore, there is no way it could be considered binding on an entity (the party membership at large) that was not party to that agreement. Should he have made the promise? I say no. It certainly was not wise. I don't even think it was necessary. (The only other candidate, Jim Prentice, was even more open to merger talks than Peter McKay was. If Peter had declined to make a deal with David Orchard, I doubt very much if Jim Prentice would have gotten the approximately 80% of DO's support (the third ballot resuts were about McKay 45%, Prentice 30% and Orchard 25%) necessary to put him over the top.)

And, I submit that any promise made by even a political party's leader cannot be binding upon the grass roots membership of that party, not if the party believes in democracy. Do you believe in democracy? Your statement that a broken promise was "whitewashed" by the grass roots would seem that you do not, that a party's membership must be bound by every promise made by that party's leader, that it cannot overrule him/her. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you do believe that the ultimate authority in a political party resides with that party's membership. If you do, please say so.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 16, 2007 03:39 PM

---

In fairness Steve, Persaud was elected in a five or six way race in 2003 that was over shadowed by Martin's coronation. He could well have got elected with less than 20% of the vote of the 3200 delegates there.

He was handily defeated in his bid for re-election at the 2005 Liberal convention.

Posted by: nbpolitico at January 16, 2007 04:20 PM

---

My apologies to calling you a Liberal if you aren't. However, when you criticized the CPC for accepting a cross-over, while not criticizing the Liberals for doing likewise, or for THEIR hypocritical reaction to Khan's crossing,or even referring to the Liberals' crossings/reactions, you did give that impression. You strengthened that impression for criticizing a policy reversal by a Tory but ignoring Liberal policy reversals (the GST, remember?).
---------------------------------

The topic was crossing over to another party...not the GST. And my post was on the Conservative...aka Janke...reaction. Why should I comment on the Liberal's accepting Stronach? My point was the different CONSERVATIVE REACTION TO THIS PARTICULAR SWITCHOVER. How can I make it clearer? Or don't you want it clearer? Do I need to set "credentials" as Liberal basher?

Okay...how's this. They got arrogant and complacent with a split oppostion. They shot themselves in the foot (with a bazooka) with the Sponsorship scandal and the Gun registry is a useless boondoggle. Not that I'm against gun control, mainly against the registry as it was implemented. The GST promise doesn't concern me because I never expected them to keep it.

Satisfied?

Of course, arrogance and complacency most often comes from being in office a long time. I remember a certain Brian Mulroney and the PC's at the time.

The offshoot of this talk on the switch is the attitude I divined from Janke and other CPC bloggers and I mentioned this attitude before,that the CPC wants to appear more "moral"...or at least upright...than the Liberals.

--------------------------

Peter McKay's promise to David Orchard was made BEFORE he became leader. It was from one leadership candidate to another. Therefore, there is no way it could be considered binding on an entity (the party membership at large)...

---------------------------

And how did McKay become Leader? From the Support of Orchard after the Promise. At the very least, it shows McKay cannot be trusted. That the membership supported may have been good for the party...after all the Alliance removed the possibilty of vote splitting. But the whole thing must have left a bad taste in the mouths of the former PC supporters. In the past, the PC's would have won, and did win, Majorities when the Liberal's screwed up as bad as they did. That the CPC only scrapped out a minority says that there is still animosity to the CPC among Conservatives. And I'm sure the McKay kerfuffle has quite a bit to do with it.

-------------------------

Your statement that a broken promise was "whitewashed" by the grass roots would seem that you do not, that a party's membership must be bound by every promise made by that party's leader, that it cannot overrule him/her

---------------------------

May I ask...just where did I say they were bound by it? That the grass roots voted to support the breaking of the promise is not the point. They are free to do that. But the CPC wants to appear better than the Liberals, but got its start by the welching on a deal that brought McKay the Leadership. And the grassroots membership said "we're okay with that".

They can do whatever they want. Are you saying I cannot be critical of it? Or do I need to "balance" it off with swipes at the Liberals?

----------------------

The difference in reaction to the mergers (Stronach v Khan and Persaud) all boils down to the circumstances of each. We all know what Stronach got out of it, a cabinet post. What have Persaud and Khan got out of it? Neither is a cabinet minister. Neither has gained anything. You'd have done better to mention Emerson. I might have agreed with you.

-------------------------

I had forgotten Emerson. He did benefit from his crossing, didn't he? What was the reaction of the CPC to it? Especially from those who bashed Stronach? If I recall, some were critical, but most were silent.

It is my opinion that no one in politics switch's without benefitting in some way. It'll be interesting to see how long Kahn sits on the back benches. And while Persaud may not be an MP, if he was annoyed with the Liberal's he could have simply left them..We will just have to wait and see.

Or perhaps Persaud can be equated with Scott Brison?

Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 17, 2007 01:05 AM

---

To Murray:

Where did you say that the PC grass roots were bound by McKay's promise? It was not explicit, true. However, when you insulted the grass roots by saying they "whitewashed" the broken promise, you seemed to imply that (one could also say that the Canadian voters in 1997 "whitewashed" the broken GST promise - I wouldn't say that because IMHO in a democracy such as ours the people are always right). But since you apparently did not intend such an obvious interpretation, I apologize.

Regarding Emerson, I would have preferred he sit as an Independent. There is clear precedent for that kind of a decision. (I would have also preferred that Khan sit as Independent - in fact I stated THAT preference while it was still a rumour). Yes, Emerson benefited. So did the government, obviously. But, so did the country (we were able to get the softwood lumber deal a lot quicker than otherwise), though, as you would point out, correctly, it was not necessary for him to sit as a Conservative. So I suspect with respect to him we are quite close in our views.

Just one final point - I do have a life you know. You can be critical of anything you want. It doesn't have to be balanced one iota. However, if you do not want to be taken for a Liberal supporter, you would be well advised to give them a swipe every now and then in a post, particularly when they have obviously sinned just as many times in just as many areas as every other political party.

PS I do thank you for your apology with respect to the anacronym.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 17, 2007 12:36 PM

---