Awh… The Poor Man
– what else could he do? Seriously folks, the ‘Harper made the hard choices and did what he had to do’ crowd are really hitting bottom in their attempts to justify soliciting a Liberal into the fold and appointing a campaign buddy to the Senate and a cabinet post.
Heard on the radio this morning, ‘For those who disagree with what the Prime Minister did, ask yourself, what else could he do?’
The answer to that is obvious, do not tell us how ethical, clean, and above board, your government is going to be and then engage in exactly the same tactics — hell, worse tactics even as to the best of our knowledge Martin didn’t call Stronach — than the guys you were decrying last month.
Didn’t the Liberals use the ‘what else could we do’ (and varients thereof) line in justifying the whole sponsorship gig? The word that comes immediately to mind is bullshit, and the bunker is calling it that.
Surprise, surprise, our local (Right)WingNut Lowell Green is going all out in defending Harper actively soliciting members from other parties to cross the floor with promises of cabinet positions.
The justification being that it is the job of the Prime Minister to get the best man for the job doing it, apparently regardless of his political stripe, or how he gets him.
Tune it, hypocrisy like that is always good for a laugh.
Did you know that, according to Lowell, many Canadians change their political allegiance and that’s all that happened with Emerson – I should have known better than to think there was anything devious going on, he just changed his mind and the cabinet position had nothing to do with it… shame on me for being cynical.
– and the trump card (just heard) is that it’s all about the regions (read saving the country – where have we heard that before ‘eh?), the droppings are getting pretty deep here folks… if Harper was really concerned with regional representation the Arctic [remember the big promises about Arctic sovereignty?] would be in there somewhere wouldn’t it? At the very least Nancy Karetak-Lindell would have gotten a late night call to have a secret meeting with Harper to discuss her potential role in the regional picture.
Bunker stock tip of the day: Buy Procter & Gamble, that much hypocrisy is gonna require a lot of Scope mouthwash to get rid of.
I am having a deja vu here, remembering a classic confrontation between John Turner and Mulroney where, in reference to Turner patronage appointments (handed to him by Trudeau), Turner, in a national televised debate, stated, “I had no choice”. Mulroney jumped all over that answer and it became the theme of the 1984 campaign.
This one will come back to bite Harper in the ass, and well it should.
Unlike Turner, Harper can probably defend his choices.
“Unlike Turner, Harper can probably defend his choices.”
He can try, but they wreak of hypocrosy and go against what he is on the record for his principles in the past.
Turner had a stronger case than Harper does now.
“Harper can probably defend his choices.â€
No doubt he can. He has an excellent cadre of spin doctors these days.
But the simple fact is that he was elected largely because he promised to show more integrity than his Liberal predecessors. And in his first day on the job, he failed to do that.
Best line to date, “it’s hypocritical but that’s not important” – heard from a caller to the Michael Harris Live show on CFRA.
I am reminded once again, from the actions of the barbarians per the Danish cartoons, to the comments in todays papers and the blogs over the last 24 hours expressing uninformed, illogical, irrational dissatisfaction with Mr. Harper’s cabinet selections, that the human species doesn’t deserve to exist.
My apologies to the few of you who have figured it out, enjoy it while you can. I know I am.
>He can try, but they wreak of hypocrosy and go against what he is on the record for his principles in the past.
I expect better of you, as well as most of the other contributers here. Harper expressly stood behind the right of MPs to cross, and stated that the Senate appointment is a temporary expedient in order for Fortier to sit in Cabinet pending a by-election. How do you find that hypocritical?
Sorry, lrC, but he doesn’t have a by-election planned for Fortier, nor for Emerson. In Fortier’s case, he’s a Senator “à condition qu’il démissionne de son poste et soit candidat au parlement au cours des prochaines élections fédérales.” (on the condition taht he quit his [senate] position and runs as a candidate in the next federal election.) This *could* mean a by-election if by chance a Montreal MP chooses to step down, but likely it means he will run after the Harper government is defeated in the House.
lrC, could you provide us with with a quote or link to Harper’s explicit endorsement of the right to cross? Robert dug this up, from the Town Hall transcripts:
“Colleen Belisle:
Hello, my name is Colleen Belisle and I have a question for Stephen Harper regarding the accountability issue. In the past 18 months, I have noticed a number of MPs crossing the floor after the election. This makes me wonder why I should, as a voter, go and vote when my MP can change parties after the election. Mr. Harper, are there any policies that you plan to enforce after the election regarding this issue? Thank you.
Stephen Harper:
My short answer is no. And I understand the voters’ frustration. You can imagine I feel that frustration as much as anyone. I was the victim of a number of the particular incidents that the voter is referring to, that Colleen’s referring to, but the difficulty, Peter – I know that many members of Parliament have put forward various proposals that would restrict the right of MPs to cross the floor, force elections, or whatever. I haven’t seen one yet that convinces me that it would create anything other than a situation where party leaders have even more power over the individual members of Parliament. And, as you know, I’ve said that, of course, I’ve said that for a long time that I think our members of Parliament need more authority, need to be able to represent their constituents’ views, and they may make very bad decisions in crossing from a good party to a bad party or, more particularly, a winning party to a losing party. But that all said, I haven’t seen one yet that I’m convinced creates a bigger problem than it’s actually trying to fix.”
Is THAT what you’re referring to as an “explicit endorsement”? (cough)
>he doesn’t have a by-election planned for Fortier
Right you are. I misread an earlier story.
>“explicit endorsement�
Did I write that somewhere? I do see that I wrote “expressly stood behind”. His short answer (to the suggestion he might enforce policies, presumably to discourage floor crossing) was “No”. Was that not clear enough? His full answer, including the response to Mansbridge’s supplementary, makes it clear that Harper would rather err in support of the freedom of the member to make the decision.
So that WAS the quote you were referring to?
Yes.
The problem isn’t the crossing, it is crossing straight into Cabinet, especially when both sides make it clear that the man would not have crossed to the CPC sides if he had not been appointed to Cabinet. That you cannot grasp why that is seriously ethically challenged does not speak well for you. The issue is not qualifications, the issue is the willingness to sacrifice convictions for power (as in running as a Liberal, winning as a Liberal, and the next day discussing with John Reynolds moving to the CPC Cabinet since he will be losing his Liberal Cabinet seat) by Emerson and the willingness to increase his (Harper) seats in a minority government he was just elected to bribe a someone into floor crossing with the power of Cabinet. That was supposedly the main objection by “principled” Conservatives regarding Stronach’s appointment to the Cabinet and why what Martin did was so bad. This excusing Emerson because it doesn’t affect a Confidence vote spin I’ve been seeing is one of the more interesting contortions I have seen Conservatives defending this clearly opportunist act by Harper and Emerson.
When taken with Fortier being made the unaccountable unelected Senator to the elected House of Commons for the Ministry of pork and patronage aka Public Works, well only the truly ethically challenged can defend these as good moves and the act of a principled man/party. The rest of us in this country see this for the “promise one kind of government deliver another on the very first day” hypocrisy it most clearly is.
You imply an unethical decision where there was none. If there are any points of agreement among the many opinions currently circulating, at least two of them are these:
1) Floor crossing is permitted by rules and custom
2) A member crossing owing to convictions reasonably thought proper, is behaving honourably
You may disagree that you’d share a particular member’s convictions; that of itself doesn’t make those convictions wrong. Emerson’s conviction seem to be that he was tapped by Martin to be a cabinet minister, not to warm a bench. If his purpose to being in Parliament was to serve his country in cabinet, he maintains his convictions by going wherever cabinet may be. I don’t see holding purpose above political partisanry to be particularly ignoble. Martin seemed happy to promote Emerson, along with some others, into several riding candidacies, often over the objections of the riding associations. In those actions I did not see evidence that the interests of constituents or the local Liberal organization of a particular riding were held to be important. The sacrifice of convictions to power was made by Martin and by all riding associations which went along (even if grudgingly).
You stated that Harper bribed Emerson into crossing the floor. What happened is that Harper asked Emerson to sit in cabinet as a Conservative. That’s a straightforward invitation to fill a particular role in government. If Harper just wanted another warm body for the vote count, presumably there’d be more of them (for insurance) and perhaps a couple of dissenters raising a stink right now that Harper approached them with “bribes”.
I can’t speak for all Conservatives, but what stunk about Stronach’s crossing is that Martin was very clearly looking only to survive a particular non-confidence test and was ignoring the very clearly declared non-confidence of the opposition parties on a technical basis while he scrounged for the votes to survive a vote which he couldn’t stall or ignore on Parliamentary technicalities. The circumstances surrounding that crossing and the other “negotiations” which came to light are entirely incomparable to the business of Harper building a cabinet to take into a new Parliament.
“You stated that Harper bribed Emerson into crossing the floor. What happened is that Harper asked Emerson to sit in cabinet as a Conservative” IRC
Yes, and that is a bribe, something that offended the CPC last Spring when Stronach was placed into Cabinet. As I keep asking people that defend Emerson’s cross into Cabinet, do you have any reason/basis to believe he would have crossed to the CPC had he NOT been given a Cabinet position? No? Then it is a bribe by Harper and one Emerson was quite willing to swallow rather than follow through on his commitments to his voters/constituents/party under whose auspices he had just been elected again two weeks earlier. If anything it is brutally clear that Emerson’s crossing was purely based in an unwillingness to lose the power of a Cabinet position, whereas Stronach’s was at least as much clearly driven by a sense of isolation and disagreement on the direction of her party. The ONLY reason it looked like a bribe was because she went straight into Cabinet.
As for your for defence of Emerson by saying Stronach’s was different because of the Non Confidence vote versus building a Cabinet, that is pure sophistry, and not very good sophistry at that. While I can see for a CPC supporter that would be such a heinous act, to the rest of the country it is a crock as a defence of Emerson’s conduct. For that matter, when Stronach crossed the floor it gave the Liberals one short of a working majority with the NDP. When Emerson crossed the floor it gave the CPC one seat short of a working majority. Seems like the same thing. Claiming the confidence vote issue suddenly makes one Stronach’s worse while the election only being two weeks ago for Emerson’s look less offensive is only an acceptable argument to a CPC partisan. The rest of us see it clearly for the hypocrisy it is, the sophistry it is, and the act of denial it is.
I would also suggest if this is so typical in our history to provide examples of other Canadian Cabinet Ministers in one government after the election which tosses the governing party out and brings the Official Opposition party to power, in which within two weeks of the election the Minister crosses the floor straight into the first new Cabinet of the new government. While floor crossing is common, and even into the Cabinet isn’t unheard of if less common, I don’t recall another example of what I just laid out in our history. Perhaps you know of such an example?
>Yes, and that is a bribe, something that offended the CPC last Spring when Stronach was placed into Cabinet.
I must know: do you draw any distinction between a bribe and a job offer? Consider these statements:
1) “I want you to sit as a Conservative MP, and offer you a cabinet post to do so.”
2) “I want you to sit in cabinet, but require you to cross and sit as a Conservative.”
(I assume that even if Harper might have entertained the idea of pulling other party members into cabinet as-is, he had to reject the idea as being intolerable to the remainder of the party.)
Are you able to see the difference between a bribe and a condition of employment?
>do you have any reason/basis to believe he would have crossed to the CPC had he NOT been given a Cabinet position?
Why do you assume the main purpose was to remove one Liberal MP and gain one Conservative MP – to misstate the actual position of Harper and Emerson? You can’t argue a conspiracy belief as fact or impute their intentions to suit yourself.
>As for your for defence of Emerson by saying Stronach’s was different because of the Non Confidence vote versus building a Cabinet, that is pure sophistry, and not very good sophistry at that.
In that regard, I’m not defending Emerson and attacking Stronach; I’m defending Harper and attacking Martin. The circumstances were different; the motivations of the Prime Ministers were different (eg. Harper can’t know now whether the NDP are going to be his only defence against a non-confidence vote). If you’re going to accept Stronach’s self-stated reasons for crossing, it’s fair to accept Emerson’s. If so, they both had, by their own statements, compelling and ethical reasons to cross.
>For that matter, when Stronach crossed the floor it gave the Liberals one short of a working majority with the NDP.
Yes, and there were certainly claims of other ongoing “negotiations” – Inky Mark and Gurmant Grewal – and part of Chuck Cadman’s explanation of his decision bore a curious resemblance to some canned remarks of Liberal origin.
>the sophistry it is
I suspect you have a different understanding of the meaning of that word that what it actually is. My premises are facts, definitions, and reasonable assumptions, and my deductions are straightforward. All are falsifiable; go ahead and falsify and test them.
>Perhaps you know of such an example?
Not offhand, but that’s irrelevant unless there are time-related limitations on when a member may cross. I’m not attempting to argue that floor-crossing immediately after an election is typical. My statement was “Floor crossing is permitted by rules and custom”.