It’s unfortunate that his children are being picked on because of his actions, but he should have seen that coming, should he not? The children of celebrities or public figures who are in favor get to bask in the limelight and get treated to all kinds of perks-by-association. That, too, is wrong. But it happens all the time. He cannot try to convince us that he is surprised by this.

And his snarling response about the Liberals having used him as a cash cow is just deflection from the real issue. The “cash cow” just took off with the bank roll, and his old cronies want it back.

Is it possible to garnishee an MP’s salary?

Don’t forget all those voters who voted for him because he was not the Conservative candidate. They should be doubly pissed.

All those who voted because he ran as a Liberal disenfranchised and deceived themselves. Emerson agreed to run to be in cabinet - if that had not been on offer, by his own comments it seems likely he’d not have run in the first place. Martin, presumably counting on the party colours but not particularly caring about the constituents, put him there to win a seat in order to put him in cabinet. If voters don’t understand who is representing them and more importantly the reasons their candidates have chosen to run, they can’t complain when the elected candidates follow up on their selected reasons for running.

It’s interesting, this is how Harper chose to defend his acquiring of Minister-and-only-Minister Emerson as opposed to his condemnation at the time of Belinda Stronach crossing the floor:

“HARPER: Well, look, in fairness, I questioned the motivation. Belinda Stronach sought to leave the party. Mr. Emerson, in fairness, did not seek to leave the Liberal Party; I approached him and asked him to serve the country in this capacity. I made arguments that obviously were compelling, and I think this is in the interests of the country. I did not ask Mr. Emerson and I don’t view this as being a hint to take this as an attack on the Liberal Party or something to be done for partisan reasons. This is to be done for the sake of having a stronger cabinet and a good government for the country.”

So because Stronach sought to leave the party, did so and happened to get a cabinet seat in passing (which is fishy but at least she wasn’t lured with the portfolio), such a move is contemptible, but a guy who supposedly has a great dedication to public service but refuses to be anything but a cabinet minister is completely justified in seeking that cabinet position no matter what??

Darn it balbulican, don’t you see? Emerson was never really running as a Liberal, he was running to be a cabinet minister! All that stuff about being Harper’s worst nightmare, and his criticism of the Tory vision as some sort of Darwinian dytopia, was just for show. After all, it was reported all over the national and local press.

Now, with the appropriately adjusted reality, we must reconsider the situation. As Emerson ran for Cabinet (as opposed to Diane Ablonczy, James Moore, or the Kenney Doll, none of whom were running to be in Cabinet), it was his obligation to his consitutents, who voted him in as a Cabinet minister, to accept Harper and Reynolds’s offer. In fact, if he’d stayed with the Liberals, his constituents would be holding sit-ins at his office to prostest his refusal to switch sides and remain in cabinet. Why, the riding association would probably demand its money back or other such retribution.

If you manage to get a pair of those glasses out of They Live and use them to look at an Emerson lawn sign, all will become clear. The sign says nothing about the Liberals. It’s actually grey, and reads “The Federal Ministry / David Emerson / Cabinet.” Might have been an “OBEY” in there somewhere, too.

Y’know, the last couple of days have been amusing and enlightening; they’ve separated the online Conservatives who (mistakenly, but still) honestly wanted a clean sweep from the party animals.

>unless Emerson campaigned stating this

Welcome to the adult world. Was there some mystery over the role of the “star” candidates where you live?

>lust for power over principles/ethics/honesty,

I don’t know about that, but clearly Emerson believes his service to the country supercedes party affiliation.

>When Emerson crossed he brought the CPC to one seat from a working majority with the NDP.

Why do you assume the Speaker will be chosen from among the CPC and NDP MPs?

>unwillingness to accept the loss of his power as a Cabinet Minister

Unless you have evidence he had the offer in hand before the election or that he was preparing to resign after the election, it must appear he was entirely willing to sit in Opposition. But, when he received an offer which more closely suited his reason for being in public service, he took it.

>Harper willing to buy a Liberal seat with a Cabinet seat,

All the evidence shows is that Harper was willing to look outside his own elected MPs to fill cabinet.

>So because Stronach sought to leave the party, did so and happened to get a cabinet seat in passing (which is fishy but at least she wasn’t lured with the portfolio),

On whose say-so was cabinet not the lure?

>Emerson was never really running as a Liberal, he was running to be a cabinet minister!

Yep. Read the man’s own words if you don’t believe your own attempt at sarcasm to be true.

lrC, it’s okay. There are still quite a few ethical conservative bloggers out there who are appalled by this, but we’re now intimately familiar with the two or three talking points the rest of the Conservatives are using to pretend there’s no issue. You’re not convincing anyone, but at least you’ve all got your scripts memorized; and at this point we know all your lines as well as you do.

The unscripted areas so far are:
- the ethics of getting elected thanks to the work of 300 volunteers who worked for you because they believe in the Liberal platform;
- Emerson’s refusal to reimburse the riding association who underwrote his campaign because they believe in the Liberal platform.

In the used car trade they call this “bait and switch”. Has the Ministry of Propaganda come up with talking points to explain that away yet?

No, no, Stageleft. Stronach was motivated by pure opportunistic greed (plus being a slut and a traitor, of course.) Emerson is motivated purely by a desire to serve Canada.

“You’re confusing ethics with your moral aesthetic preferences. It is clear established that floor-crossing is not unethical behaviour in Parliament.”

Ethics. A system of moral principles, rules and standards of conduct.

Your dodging is my answer. Thanks.

Bob’s “shoots to pieces” are just hand-waving and cloud-shaped diagrams. There’s no reason to believe Emerson’s being in cabinet doesn’t matter to the Americans; conversely it is arguable that having that particular ministry combined with the softwood file is advantageous. It is certainly the case that cabinet duties amount to more than attending “a bunch of meetings” (nice objection: well-reasoned, strong argument, that). Finally, Bob’s opinion that balanced cabinet representation is a non-issue is noted, to be filed alongside the opinions of all other Canadians, particularly those who write long articles about the importance of representation as measured by various criteria (culture, gender, sexual orientation, region, etc) whenever cabinets are created and shuffled.

lrC:

Give it up, my friend.

Emerson’s recusal statement recuses him from looking “inward” to benefit Canfor, not looking “outward” to benefit Canadian interests at large. I can’t find the link I followed to a gc.ca site which had a text of the agreement, but here is what seems to be an accurate cut/paste someone noted at Andrew Coyne’s site:

“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.”

“However, this measure is not intended to prevent me from participating in discussions and carrying out my official duties and responsibilities with respect to issues of general application or relating to any industry sector in which Canfor Corporation, its subsidiaries and affiliates may operate.”

Ethics are codified, balbulican. Morals are values. There are no rules against floor-crossing. When Parliament produces a code of ethics which disallows floor-crossing, then floor-crossing will be unethical. When you come up with a solid argument, present it. Until then, carry on with your ad hominem attacks since you have nothing of argumentative substance to write.

I’m supporting the existing standard, not arguing for a new one. Are you arguing to raise the standard? If so, when did you adopt these ideals - last week, or last year?

If the efforts of volunteers and fundraisers are relevant, then what is your proposal? It doesn’t matter if a defection happens the day after an election or six months or three years; it doesn’t matter if the defection is to another party or to sit as an independent. In each case, the impact on the volunteers and fundraisers is the same. Are you just going to pick some arbitrary number of days after an election and say “Before=bad, After=OK”?

I can’t speak to exactly what the CPC considers corrupt, but it’s fair to say Adscam and (provided there is any substance to the suspicions) some of the undertakings of Earnscliffe and the Relocation program to be corrupt. There may have been an element of corruption involved somewhere in the announcement regarding income trusts. I doubt the CPC considered Martin’s refusal to acknowledge the clearly declared non-confidence of the oppositions parties on technical grounds to be corrupt, but it was certainly an indication of a government cleaving close to the line of irresponsible behaviour by choosing to set the weakest possible precedent for federal politics.

Some members and supporters may have thought Stronach corrupt for crossing, but that appears to have been sour grapes. I don’t know that it is either CPC policy or Harper’s intention that floor-crossing is corrupt.

The Conservatives whined loudly about the way things turned out last year, and now people are using that as an excuse to pretend the Conservatives are unethical. They’re not unethical, they were ill-humoured. The correct response for people who are non-Conservative supporters today is to whine loudly or maintain silence as they please.

Good for them.