My Sympathy Levels Are Low
From the Stephen Taylor .ca facebook page
Stephen Taylor .ca: Meta-hypocrisy is accusing someone forced into a hypocritical decision — arriving at this point not by their own intent, but by the bounds of the imperfect system in which they find themselves and of which you’ve let fester — of something you would do unabashedly and without remorse. example – see Liberal talking points regarding the PM’s latest senate appointments.
It’s a really good line, one that I’m sure the party faithful will blindly parrot all over the InterTubes, but the the thing is…. Stephen Harper was not forced to do anything.
Stephen Harper thought there was some sort of provincial/territorial will to elect Senators and that all the various jurisdictions would jump on board with his plan at the first opportunity.
– he was wrong
Stephen Harper thought that he could move this type of Senate reform through government
– he was wrong
In 2006 the following was found on the Conservative Party of Canada website:
“A conservative government will not appoint to the senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people.”
– he broke that promise, and this one found on his leadership website in 2004.
“Stephen Harper will cease patronage appointments to the Senate. Only candidates elected by the people will be named to the Upper House.”
– and now, instead of admitting that it was a plan that the people of Canada are obviously not behind, dropping his plan, and moving forward Stephen Harper is doing exactly what he promised he would not do, for the very same reasons that every other PM has done the very same thing, and trying to blame the provinces, and the territories, and the Liberals, and the Senate… as a matter of fact everybody but himself and his party, because he chose to break personal promises made to the Conservative Party of Canada and to the Canadian people if they allowed him to form a government.
If Stephen Harper had the principles he tells everyone he has he would have kept his word, not appointed anyone to the Senate who was not elected, and his friends and supporters would not now be rubbing their hands in anticipation of an annual salary of $132,000.00, lots of expense perks, and a really healthy retirement plan.
He’s really gonna hurt his back if he keeps bending and twisting with that pretzel logic.
Taylor is a real aparatchik. Just like Cherniak.
Looks like meta-rationalizing from here. Who knew Cons were such gymnastics.
I’m less surprised at the spin Stephen is attempting here and more surprised he actually allowed you to become a friend of his on Facebook.. or that you requested it
Rationalising, spin, nuanced explanations….Feh! Stephen Taylor is lying..
It’s hard out there for a pimp.
Pimp or rent boy? I can never tell “whore’s who” these days.
@Scott Tribe: Not being partisan I get to hang out at a great many places that partisans may be unwelcome Scott…… there’s a whole lot of people out there who think I’m only 1/2 a step and 1 blog post away from “being one of them”
Totally agree SL in fact I was thinking along the same lines as S.Taylor.
But have since come around to the thought that Harper would be in a stronger position if he refused to fill the seats,citing their opposition to the idea/insult of an unelected senate with legislative power, least he/the Cons appear hypocritical.
People like Taylor are so cynical that they just can’t bring themselves to believe that ordinary Cnd’s appreciate honesty and principles. and that in the long run honesty and principled action always pays out.
aparatchik [sic], liar, pimp, rent boy, whore?
Stay classy, folks.
May I suggest debating the argument? If you can’t, just smile and the world will smile with you.
Stay classy, folks.
Whoever gave you the idea we were “classy?” Our bestest friends, the Taliban?
I don’t think I’ve ever said that you were a friend of the Taliban.
What argument?
I don’t think I’ve ever said that you were a friend of the Taliban.
That’s not Stephen Taylor. He doesn’t dialogue.
Well person who may or may not be l’il Stephen Taylor, big Stephen swore he would not appoint senators. Big Stephen promptly stuffed as many cronies and hacks as he he could into the senate. Only one conclusion to draw from that, Big Stephen lied through his teeth. Period. The rationalization for this is obstruction of his legislative agenda by the Liberals in the senate. Examining the actual record shows that most of his failed legislative attempts derived from little things like prorogation and bills being introduced too late in the legislative session. There is no justification for the charge of obstruction, proof by repeated assertion is not proof.
Despite the whining of the Cons and their trained puffins, there is no concrete evidence of the senate doing anything but an exemplary job throughout Big Stephen’s minority reign. As the house of sober second thought, the senate has performed as intended. There is no call from the general public for senate reform. We do not need yet another pack of partisan yobs spending their every waking effort clamoring for re-election and hustling for lobbyist cash. That would run counter to the very design of our parliamentary democracy. But then, you and the snot whistling rubes that populate the blogging tories site, don’t want our democracy, you don’t care for our heritage and history. You want to remake our nation based on the failing model you love so well, that of the United States. You can get there on a bus you know, you and Hunter and Kathy and Kate. That big ugly deregulated shit mire already exists, go, please, enjoy the real thing and leave Canada Canadian.
Our flaws are better than their virtues, this is a truly wonderful land and we certainly don’t need fixing from a herd of pissants with their pockets full of “think tank” dollars and covert corporate agendas. As to the charges you protest… apparatchik – follow the money, oh fellow of the Manning Institute and paid partisan. The other less seemly accusations I leave to the reader while noting that you run an organization that is little more than an ugly pipeline of talking points and smear. You front for a party that imported the methodology of the constant campaign attack and twisted the system to the very edges of ethical collapse in order to carry out that permanent campaign on the tax payer’s dime.
Your guys cheated the election finance process and obstructed investigation resulting in RCMP raids. Your guys play fast and loose with sensitive documents, leaving them lying around their girlfriend’s places and TV stations. Your guys fired and bullied the civil service for failure to toe the partisan line in areas great and minor. Your guys played politics with Chalk River and scurried about hiding blame as diagnostics and treatment was put at risk. Your guys ate at buffets and made funny jokes about food as Canadians died from listeriosis, largely a result of your insane penchant for deregulation. Your guys spend millions of dollars giving gift buildings and high tech toys to fundamentalist religious schools while the poorest of our children go without schools at all.
Forgive us if your bended knee to the CEOs and boards of the world make us think you a bunch of grubby whores. It is simply an image that pops to mind when you see folks sucking it for reward.
and let me save you the trouble of a rejoinder…
but but but Adscam.
All better now.
@psa – Heh. Indeed.
What the hell. It’s been a while, so I’ll stick my head in the lion’s den & get it chewed off, by taking a stab at some of PSA’s arguments about the Senate in particular:
1. Big Stephen promptly stuffed as many cronies and hacks as he he could into the senate
Not sure what you mean by “promptly”. Other than Bert Brown, who won a Senate election in AB, he didn’t appoint anyone from the time he took office in January ‘06 till the Coalition bru-ha-ha at the end of ‘08/start of ‘09. Source.
2. There is no justification for the charge of obstruction, proof by repeated assertion is not proof. … As the house of sober second thought, the senate has performed as intended.
That’s more of a matter of interpretation. What constitutes “obstruction” vs. “sober second thought” may depend on one’s opinion of what’s being considered (and how quickly). But in at least some cases, you’re correct – prorogation, etc obviously has an effect on what’s being considered.
3. There is no call from the general public for senate reform.
The govt doesn’t, and shouldn’t necessariy, wait till there is a “call from the general public” before addressing a given issue.
4. We do not need yet another pack of partisan yobs spending their every waking effort clamoring for re-election and hustling for lobbyist cash. That would run counter to the very design of our parliamentary democracy. … You want to remake our nation based on the failing model you love so well, that of the United States.
I’d be happy enough with the Aussie model, myself, with some modifications. Yankee, Stay Home!
But if we’re going to have a Senate at all, I’d sooner it be elected. I see your point about fewer politicians/”partisan yobs” (yeesh), but our “parliamentary democracy” has evolved in other ways. Having an elected “upper house” will take adjustment & getting used to, but I prefer it to the status quo.
Okie dokie…
1. Typical of his mangy lust for power, big Steve decided not to break his word until the workings of legitimate democracy threatened to unseat him. In a fit of pique and desperation he did what many of us expected. He ditched his stated principles. He broke his word to his own side and lied to the country. He also redoubled the Conservative smear campaign against not only the opposition but extended the disinformation ministry’s mandate to undermine the very notion of our parliamentary system. He and his minions went out of their way to characterize legitimate parliamentary procedure as a coup d’etat. When confronted by a tangible and legitimate threat, he not only lied through his teeth, he suspended the federal government and went into hiding as the nation sat on the brink of economic crises unparalleled since the great depression. Whilst hiding from democracy he jammed a herd of dubious choices into the upper house. But let’s not forget the first tinkering he did with the senate actually took place on his first day as PM. Michael Fortier was parachuted not only not the senate but into cabinet, with nary a vote to his name… that is until he later decided to run and was defeated.
2. Your point is… show us instances wherein the senate acted in a rash or partisan manner to block or impede the progress of legislation. Show us a case wherein the senate failed in its duty to the lower house or to the people of Canada. It was the senate going through omnibus bills and suggesting the appropriate amendments that saved us from a conservative economic censor presiding over the Canadian film and television industry. Check out my prior post on the mattter of Bill C-10 for further details. The senate has done its job and done it well while both sides of the lower house have flailed and acted with the maturity of eighth graders.
3. The Conservatives certainly shouldn’t be cavalierly deciding to unmake our system of governance and crack open the constitution without good cause and without the determined will of the people. Campaigning against the tyrants of the senate, whining like curs that the upper house is somehow unfairly aligned against them because of the prior acts of such partisan hacks as the Liberals is disingenuous. All the more so when one looks at the numbers. With three years in a weak minority, Harper has stuffed 29 flunkies, hacks and partisans into the august chambers of the senate. Compare his record to that of the evil and terrifying Paul Martin from the roundly demonized Liberals. Martin, serving for almost the same time as PM, made 17 appointments and 5 of those or 30% of those were to non-Liberals, 2 Cons, 1 NDP and 2 PC senators. Mr Harper is determined to break the senate because of a perceived slight or disparity against his own will.
He sees it as a personal affront that the senate doesn’t better reflect his party and his personal will. His party is all of six years old. The senate isn’t broken, Harper’s only desire to fix what isn’t broken is to finagle some sort of personal advantage, it is his only motive for anything. There isn’t an altruistic bone in his lumpen body. The Liberal Party of Canada has led the government for 83 years of Canada’s history with another 22 years of governance from the Liberal-Conservative Party. The remainder of Canada’s governments PC, Conservative and otherwise account for 33 years in power. I think the senate accurately reflects the will of the Canadian people in their choice of government.
4. What is the advantage to the performance of government by making the senate an elected body? Harper wants a rubber stamp outfit that will blink and pass any piece of crap he sets before them. With the senate of Harper’s design, chances are that Charles McVety would be determining what films get made in Canada. The purpose of the senate in our system is to act as a brake on government, to temper the process with consideration, experience and wisdom. The senate is supposed to be home to our elder statespersons, those whose lives and experience have grown beyond petty partisan concerns. They are the ones charged with performing due diligence and acting as a check on legislation.
An elected senate would be subject to all of the negative influences of lobbyists, pressure groups and special interests. The senate is supposed to work for the benefit of the country not the party. I see no advantage to the country or to good governance from an elected senate and other than insincere ‘blah blah will of the people’ tripe, no one has been able to articulate a solid reason for such change. The rhetoric all comes down to making the upper house changeably partisan. The proponents of such change don’t tend to see beyond the temporary favour of their own position before the electorate. Harper wants an elected senate that reflects his party, his government and makes his life easier. Sorry, but Prime Ministers don’t need easier lives, they need crusty old buggers telling them to sit down and smarten up. They need the sort of senate we already have.
The appointment of Doug Finley to the Senate tells everyone but the most disingenuous of his supporters everything the rest of us already knew about what motivates Stephen Harper to perform these about faces. I mean, just think back to deathbad visits and loophole digging and strategic lawsuits. Why would anyone seriously wonder why we have a Senator Doug Finley now?
1. First, good point re: Fortier. He completely slipped my mind, and the source I pointed you to only lists current Senators – when he quit to run in the last election (as promised), he went off the list @ that link.
2. If you want to get picky about it, the 2006 platform said that the Tories would “Begin reform of the Senate by creating a national process for choosing elected Senators from each province and territory. • Propose further reforms to make the Senate an effective, independent, and democratically elected body that equitably represents all regions.” Source Granted, prior to that Harper and the CPC had said they wouldn’t appoint unelected Senators, but that wasn’t in the ‘06 platform.
2. One example that comes to mind is the Accountability Act. The Senate sat on it for months, only to grudginly put it through once the pressure built on the Liberals in the lower house.
3. As for Paul Martin’s non-Liberal appointments, there was more than a little bit of mischief there. He appointed a nominally NDPer, even though the NDP wants nothing to do with the Senate. Except for that person & H. Segal, most or all of the others were so-called “Progressive Conservatives” – a party that no longer exists at the federal level, The fact that most of those so-called PCs joined the CPC is yet another example of Paul Martin’s plans not working out as expected, not a sign of his bona fides.
4. As far as the # of Senators Harper has appointed, that’s a function of how many Senators reached retirement age and/or resigned since he’s been in office.
5. It’s become clear that meaningful change won’t happen to the Senate in the short term, like it or not. Non-Conservatives may wish that Harper would simply not appoint Conservatives as a result, but that isn’t going to happen. The fact is, except for Brown & Fortier he didn’t rush to appoint Senators right off the bat.
6. Debating the coalition is a whole other story, but I’ll say this: it was no less “constitutional” for Harper to ask that Parliament be prorogued than it would have been for the oppo to vote non-confidence and seek to install a coalition. Both are constitutional and legal; you see the former as lacking legitimacy even so, as I see the latter.
7. You say the Senate reflects the will of the people based on who appointed them. I say, put that theory to the test. People may very well vote for different party stripes at different levels. They do so in Canada (fed vs. prov), and they do so in jurisdictions that have elected upper houses.
8. For all the “hypocrite” charges laid on Harper’s doorstep, he is, I think, only the 2nd PM to appoint somebody who won an election to the Senate. (Mulroney, a PCer, appointed a Reformer who won the 1st senate election.) If, say, PEI has a Senate election and a Liberal wins, and Harper doesn’t appoint him/her the next time a vacancy opens up in PEI, then you’d have a much stronger point than you do now.
Basically, you and I both seem to want a Senate that can serve as a break (or at least, a “delayer”) of whomever happens to be PM. We disagree on whether that Senate should be elected, or continue as an appointed House. I will say that your notion of what the Senate is supposed to be – in your words, a “home to our elder statespersons, those whose lives and experience have grown beyond petty partisan concerns” – is and has been far away from reality. Some very good people have been appointed, and some have risen above their parties. But mostly, they stay as true to their partisan roots as anyone else, whether they’re appointed or not.
My late partner wanted the Senate elected and representing the regions.
I don’t. I don’t know what a “region” is, exactly, but it has to be more than a single province or territory. Let’s open that up for discussion. I’d go for Atlantic provinces, North, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies and BC.
But even there, a very small population could stand in the way of a very large one. That’s OK if we’re dealing with rights, but not so good if it’s done mischievously–and there is nothing stopping the latter.
Just get rid of the damned thing and run the country with a monocameral legislature elected on PR principles.
The man who spams me – a know libertarian who despises all parties and voting in general – with his idiotic “Republican’s for Ignatief” horse shit, can STFU about civility.
Taylor is the very definition of apparatchik and if he doesn’t like it, he can suck eggs.
As for Jason, all of your assertions are irrelevant. He said he wouldn’t and now he has and has, in fact appointed more senators – most of which are his cronies and friends – than any other PM. And that has been in the last 7 months.
I am old enough to remember when doing that caused a sitting PM not only to lose an election, but to watch the other party win the biggest majority in Canadian history.
Harper, sir, had a choice.
He chose public payola for his friends and possible immunity for Doug Finlay in regards to the In and Out Scandal rather than preserve his supposed principals on the subject.
But of course, Taylor’s only principals are Win for Party, and If the Party does it, it must be good by definition.
Apparatchik fits perfectly.
First, good point re: Fortier. He completely slipped my mind,…
That explains so much about “Conservatives” right there.
“You had an option, Sir.” Play it again, Sam.
Ohferchrissakes, how desperate and deluded do you have to be to defend DOUG FINLEY BEING APPOINTED TO THE SENATE?!
Okay Jason real quick like…
1. Harper lied. You can put ribbons and bunting on it, you can twist and squirm about the whens and wheres but at the end of the day one simple truth remains. harper lied. He swore one thing and did another.
2. The Federal Accountability Act was two and a half months in the lower house and four and a half months in the senate. That includes time spent on amendments to the act. Hardly seems like an obstruction. In fact that appears to me to be the senate doing what it is charged to do, give due consideration to legislation. I’ll leave you to go and look at the words of actual Liberal senators regarding the pride they took in helping to craft the act, improving it in a number of key areas. It was to be the initial grand statement of the Harper era, along with the fixed elections dates act. I needn’t remind you how long that one lasted before big Steve declared himself exempt.
3. Bollocks. Martin for all of his many flaws, appointed 2 Conservatives, 2 Progressive Conservatives and 1 NDP to the senate. While the PCs were freshly dead, due to the duplicity and spinelessness of weepy Pete MacKay, they were a party that had served at the federal level for decades. Harpers version of the Conservatives are not yet a decade old. Flap your hands and pretend as hard as you want, Martin made 30% of his appointments non-partisan. Bona fides and supposed plans be damned. Harper has now jammed 29 of his cronies into the red chamber in a year. You can say Adscam a few times if it makes you feel better.
4. He’s noble for having left seats empty in lieu of a promise he could not and would not keep? He was willing to leave senate seats in limbo top make a point every bit as sophisticated as holding his breath until he got his way. Sweet. He either hadn’t a clue that senate reform would require a long and complex process and a mandate well beyond that of a weak minority or he was a smug, snot playing for the cheap seats.
5. It wasn’t until it started looking like he might have his mandate pulled that he decided it was time to stack the senate deck. That is of course, after breaking his own law about fixed elections. Senate reform, if it happens, should take time and care. The former Harper might not have and the latter he’s shown no evidence of. Harper can see the writing on the wall, if he doesn’t get a majority in the next election the knives will be out for him. He could easily lose the next election, given his dismal record on the economy and a long list of other matters. So he acted as ethically as he ever has when he stuffed every seat he could with crooked, useless goofs like Finley.
6. Both are perfectly legit. The motives behind such things are another matter altogether. Harper used proroguing parliament as a scam to hide from his own government record and obligations. The coalition was a Thanksgiving turkey a few days before the holiday, lots of gobbling but doomed.
7. The senate isn’t a pair of shoes. Give it a chance isn’t the sort of glowing recommendation that inspires me to want to see the constitution opened for tinkering by mediocre characters like Stephen Harper. For all of the revisions and evasions you have yet to offer one solid reason why we should allow Harper to open the upper house for redesign.
8. He remains a hypocrite and a liar. One senator chosen by vote, as a stunt, is not compelling. I dare say that the subsequent flooding of the benches with such luminaries as Mike Duffy rather dilute the seriousness of the argument. Perhaps had Harper chosen to take his token elected senator from an area not overwhelmingly Conservative, your point might hold a little water. How many Libs or NDP were up for consideration on that ballot anyway?
Fact remains, regardless of all else, Harper is not a man of his word. For all the claims of a partisan upper house you still have not proven your case that the senate obstructs the government. Sure they caucus by party but they don’t let that prevent them from doing their job for the country first and party second. Prove me wrong.
Before PSA’s comments – Mike, you say “[Harper] has, in fact appointed more senators – most of which are his cronies and friends – than any other PM. And that has been in the last 7 months.” That bit about “more senators than any other PM” isn’t true. And as I’ve said before, the only reason he’s been able to appoint any Senators is b/c those that are in place retire or resign.
1. Yup. Harper changed/altered/lied/call-it-what-you-will from his earlier statements (if not from the ‘06 platform). Unfortunately, that puts him in the same class as most PMs on one point or another, but whether that makes him *worse* is a matter of opinion.
2. The Libs moved on this when they were compelled to, speeches aside.
3. I’ll save shouting “Adscam” for the election campaign *rimshot* I’ve said my bit about Martin’s appointments. Fact is that a PM appointing someone who isn’t in the same Party is *rare*. As one example: Chretien appointed 75, and 72 were Libs (3 were “no party”). Mulroney? 55/57 = PCs. Martin had 17 appointments to work with and 12 of them were Libs, in the context of a Senate that already had a substantial Liberal majority (a bit easier to be generous when it doesn’t cost you anything in the immediate term…). Fact is, the PC Party no longer existed as a federal Party at the time (and his ND Senator ended up joining the Liberal caucus anyway in Jan ‘09). Source.
4. The provinces, other than AB & SK, could have and still could choose to hold Senate elections. They’ve decided not to.
5./6. Again, coalition – it was a live issue till Ignatief decided to back down for good. Leaving the field open for the coaltion to fill vacancies ASAP isn’t something that Harper should’ve been expected to do.
7. I think allowing us to choose our Senators through some form of an election process rather than leaving it to the whims of the current occupant of 24 Sussex is a “solid reason”. Your mileage may vary.
8. Nowhere else has *had* a Senate election, and the Libs & NDP chose not to participate in the ‘04 one in AB. SK, on go-forward basis, will be an interesting case, because they elect NDs and Libs there with slightly more frequency than they do in AB (albeit not so much in recent federal elections…). If there was a Senate election and Harper didn’t appoint the winner, that would be another story.
To you and the others saying Harper will pay the “you had an option” price – maybe. But for better or for worse, there have been PMs before this one who lied/changed their mind/”adapted to changed circumstances:/etc and who get re-elected anyway, and there will be again. I don’t always like it, but there it is.
The entire point, though, which you would appear to have missed, is that Harper lied about everything, all of it, the whole enchilada. He’s the liariest of all the liars.