babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Harper's awful first week

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Harper's awful first week
Rob8305
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6298

posted 10 February 2006 10:45 PM      Profile for Rob8305     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2006/02/10/1436121-cp.html

Keep it up Stevie!


From: Montrose | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422

posted 10 February 2006 10:54 PM      Profile for Centrist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But, unfortunately, today's Ipsos-Reid poll bears something else, apparently still a bit of a honeymoon blip...

CPC approval rating: 54%

CPC election 2006 tally: 36%


From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 10 February 2006 11:03 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A measly 54% approval right after winning an election is proof the honeymoon is over.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 10 February 2006 11:16 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I want to read the poll before I believe the 54% was honestly arrived at. Also an approval rating is much different than a vote. Also keep in mind the govt has effectively done SFA, there's nothing to approve.

At least one of the Ipsos questions smacked of push pulling.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 10 February 2006 11:23 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question is, is the honeymoon over between the press and the new government?

From Rob8305's link:

quote:
There was also the matter of MPs slipping en masse out back doors to avoid reporters after their first national caucus meeting; a cabinet session at Meech Lake that left the national media huddled on a wind-swept highway seeking comment from ministers in limousines that didn't stop; and at least two significant phone calls - one between Harper and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and another between Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and the U.S. secretary of state - about which the government provided no information.

Being ignored, left to huddle in the cold. Hmm. Corporate press is one thing but indiviudal reporters file their reports.

quote:
With steady hands including Senator Hugh Segal, a career Tory backroomer, and former Mulroney chief of staff Derek Burney on the transition team, no one foresaw such early chaos.

"It means one of two things," said Montreal Liberal Denis Coderre. "Either the guy (Harper) is a loner, or I missed something."


At this point I'm guessing loner, arrogant, swollen with power, contemptuous of the electorate . . .


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 10 February 2006 11:27 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On Thursday afternoon, CTV, CBC, and Global reporters were in the hallways of the House to ask about the Emerson mess, and except for one MP (Revenue - I forget her name) and PM Harpoon, all the Con MP's ran away from the reporters. What a bunch of chickenshits, and on their first week. This bodes well for Harpoon, does it not?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
fast_twitch_neurons
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10443

posted 10 February 2006 11:29 PM      Profile for fast_twitch_neurons     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The 54% figure makes perfect sense. It's not as though all the 64% of the people who voted for a party other than the CPC hate the CPC. You would expect to have the approval of bloc supporters, swing ndpers and some blue liberals, and they do.

I suggest that this obssession over the honeymoon period is a waste of mental energy. I don't think this is a critical juncture.


From: Montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 10 February 2006 11:36 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quote:I suggest that this obssession over the honeymoon period is a waste of mental energy. I don't think this is a critical juncture.

Oh, I disagree. This sorry affair with Emerson and Fortier has re-energised the Opposition, which is Harpoon's worse nightmare. Watch the Opposition come out swinging now, when the House re-convenes in April.

It's fun to watch the Cons twist in the wind over Emerson. Besides, if enough Con MP's get riled up over Harpoon's abuse of the political process (not to mention Harpoon's promises to do things differently), it'll drive a wedge in the party a la Chretien/Martin and plant the seeds of self-destruction.

This week has been a gift. Enjoy it.

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mimas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12050

posted 12 February 2006 10:50 AM      Profile for Mimas        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Centrist:
But, unfortunately, today's Ipsos-Reid poll bears something else, apparently still a bit of a honeymoon blip...

CPC approval rating: 54%

CPC election 2006 tally: 36%


Didn't Ipsos Reid also tell us that the Cons had 42% and the Libs 24% support just before the election? I don't find their polls that trustworthy.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 February 2006 11:17 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Liberals took 30% and yet I think that every poll on Martin approval rating was far higher than 30%. Jack Layton gets approval ratings of about 60% and yet got just 18% of the vote. Go figure.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 12 February 2006 11:18 AM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again, an approval rating for "government" is far different than support for a party in the midst of an election.

Many people are willing to give a new government, even one not of their choosing, the benefit of doubt. Since the government has done nothing yet, except pick a cabinet and generate some controversy, the number in my view is rather meaningless.

It'll be bandied about by those who want to show that the Emerson thing isn't hurting them. The reality is, the Emerson/Fortier thing is hurting them, especially in the west, in their traditional base.

What would be terrific is if the man from Parkdale High Park (ON) who took the time to come to the Vancouver protest rally and speak along with the rest of us gets his wish: that Vancouver Kingsway leads the way for Canadians to demand, and get, better.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sandy47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10648

posted 12 February 2006 11:43 AM      Profile for Sandy47     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
The question is, is the honeymoon over between the press and the new government?

From Rob8305's link: Re: S. Harper

At this point I'm guessing loner, arrogant, swollen with power, contemptuous of the electorate . . .


Hmmm... so the whole bu$h-lite thingy still applies then.


From: Southwest of Niagara - 43.0° N 81.2° W | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 12 February 2006 03:06 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps an attitude adjustment is required. It looks as though Harper expected a majority and so, is carrying on just as if he did score one. But then, he was never known for the quality of his humility. Strange how right-wing, fundamentalists don't seem to believe much in that Christian virtue ...

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 12 February 2006 04:22 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A number of westerners are also upset that Ablonczy did not get a major cabinet post.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 12 February 2006 04:47 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My assessment is that the Emerson and Fortier decisions were calculated decisions. Obviously, they miscalculated how badly they would be received. Will this be fatal to the Conservatives? Only time will tell. What I see, though, is that they aren't afraid of taking big risks. What's more, they learn from their mistakes. I'd bet on the long term chances of that kind of culture over the chances of those who play it safe and don't learn from their mistakes, which is more like some other parties we know.

The people around Harper are smart, and they have a definite long term agenda they are working on. Unlike some other parties we know, they're not afraid of short term hits for long term gains.

A weakness of theirs is that they somewhat overestimate what smartness alone can achieve. Another weakness is that Harper seems unable to act personable for much longer than an election campaign.

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cfkane
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12023

posted 12 February 2006 06:01 PM      Profile for cfkane        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rasmus raven:
My assessment is that the Emerson and Fortier decisions were calculated decisions. Obviously, they miscalculated how badly they would be received. Will this be fatal to the Conservatives? Only time will tell. What I see, though, is that they aren't afraid of taking big risks. What's more, they learn from their mistakes.

Uhm, I hate to even hint at offering any “superficial criticism” to this “claim”, but can someone tell where anyone in the Conservative upper echelon has “learned from their mistakes” or has even admitted that a “mistake” was made by the Emerson and Fortier “anointments”.

So far, all I’ve heard is that any complaints from us commoners is merely “superficial criticism”, and that Harper knows best what he is doing and we should not be questioning his pronoucements, or we’ll all end up in Garth Turner’s corner of the dark, rat infested basement!


From: North York | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 12 February 2006 06:07 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Uhm, I hate to even hint at offering any “superficial criticism” to this “claim”, but can someone tell where anyone in the Conservative upper echelon has “learned from their mistakes” or has even admitted that a “mistake” was made by the Emerson and Fortier “anointments”.

It's too soon to tell about Emerson/Fortier, but the Conservatives definitely learned from the mistakes they made in the 2004 election campaign.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 12 February 2006 06:42 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Must remember... the people around Harper doing election strategy are not all the same people now around Harper now that he's got his government. Harper is, and will continue, to revert to form - leaning more on his own ideas and close cadre of think-alikes for strategic direction than those which brought him to power.

In part, that's why we are seeing things unravel already.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 12 February 2006 06:44 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jim Travers:
To convince Canadians something more has changed than the noses in the public trough, Harper will have to read the riot act to a cabinet with the potential to be, well, ethically accident-prone.

The national capital's cruellest game is guessing the minister who will be forced first to explain a fishy contract. Will it be Fortier, who is connected by capillary to Quebec Conservatives, or Gordon O'Connor, the former general and lobbyist Harper dangerously named defence minister, or some dark horse?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Matt_Risser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11800

posted 13 February 2006 09:43 AM      Profile for Matt_Risser     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
hopefully the first of many
From: Lunenburg, NS | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 February 2006 10:19 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
No, hopefully the first of very, very few, followed by a lifetime of obscurity.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 13 February 2006 12:40 PM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Many people are willing to give a new government, even one not of their choosing, the benefit of doubt. Since the government has done nothing yet, except pick a cabinet and generate some controversy, the number in my view is rather meaningless.

I'd fit into that group... I didn't vote conservative, but I'll be one of the 54% that give Harper the benefit for the time being. Emerson crossing the floor I don't view as a ethics issue... I view Emerson crossing as a nessacary evil of Minority politcs (which conflicts with majority rules that we've seen so often... Had Harper have a majority, this move wouldn't have been needed) and I also think Emerson is the best person to have attached to the Foriegn trade role. The fact that it was dirty politics (in majority politics atleast) is of lesser concern.


From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 February 2006 12:49 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you think that Emerson really is such a great catch and such an asset to the Conservative government - why are you afraid to have him run in a byelection so that Harper and Emerson's good judgment can be "ratified" by the voters???

Surely the voters in Kingsway will be blinded by the brilliance emenating from the great David Emerson and re-elect him as a Tory with a massive majority!! (not)


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 13 February 2006 12:56 PM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
why are you afraid to have him run in a byelection so that Harper and Emerson's good judgment can be "ratified" by the voters???

Hehe, not afraid of a by-election... I'd still push for one to be honest. Hehe, I'm still a NDP supporter on these forums and the entire situation does stink. I do tend towards devil advocate with some of my oposts though

My only concern is the voters of Kingsway would allow the outrage over how it happened to obscure their judgement. Who would make a better foriegn trade cabinet minister? I'd ultimately hate to see the best man for the position not get the job because theres a bunch of angry liberals (and strategic voting NDPers who I laugh at) who want to bring him down.


From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 13 February 2006 01:09 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The irony is that if the CPC do lose Emerson they are without a doubt losing their best MP.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
AWd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11919

posted 13 February 2006 01:16 PM      Profile for AWd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
The irony is that if the CPC do lose Emerson they are without a doubt losing their best MP.

Why is he the best MP? Just because he is not a Conservative (was not), or is there something else?

[ 13 February 2006: Message edited by: AWd ]


From: Regina | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 February 2006 01:22 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The voters of Vancouver Kingsway don't want to have to bring anyone down - they just want their elected 'public servant' to start acting as if he knew how to spell the term or to behave as if he knew what it meant.
Voters are angry, not just at Emerson but at the whole mess of adscam and going backwards in a line of federal scandals that disillusion even conscientious voters. People in this election thought that they could use their votes to address a problem and or send a message in federal politics. No sooner is the election over than Harper is trying to change the decision of voters who rightly denied him a majority or even a strong minority. Harper and Emerson/Fortier are showing exactly the same lack of connection with the voter that we witnessed with the Liberal party. Accepting the decision of voters who cast their ballots with a wait and see attitude towards the Conservatives has not made any inroads into Harper's arrogance, he governs with an attitude of disrespect towards the people he is supposed to represent. Emerson and Fortier are just symbols of a much bigger problem in politics and that IMO is a growing disconnect between the regular people of Canada and the elites from the partnership of government, business, and media that hold the reigns of power.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 February 2006 01:23 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by AWd:
Why is he the best MP?

Maybe it's his way with words and respect for others?

quote:
Emerson struck a defiant tone today as he told a Vancouver radio talk show (on CKNW) that he would not resign from the Conservative cabinet.

He said weekend rallies against his defection were driven by ``partisans and zealots" but he is getting a lot of support from people telling him to hang in there.

Emerson says he is non-partisan and continues to be loyal to the economic issues and values for which he entered politics in the first place.


http://tinyurl.com/bud4t


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 February 2006 01:26 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My only concern is the voters of Kingsway would allow the outrage over how it happened to obscure their judgement.

Well boo-hoo-hoo. This sounds like Henry Kissinger's famous quote the morning after Allende won the presidential election in 1970 "We can't sit by and let a country go socialist just because of the stupidity of its voters".

There are probably many, many non-NDP candidates across the country who are competent, but that doesn't mean we have to vote for them. I live in Trinity-Spadina. I used to be represented by Tony Ianno who was a CABINET MINISTER. According to you, what fools were we to vote out a CABINET MINISTER and replace him with a puny third party backbencher like Olivia Chow.

What exactly is so great about Emerson anyways. What exactly did he accomplish as Industry Minister under Martin apart from throwing around some Liberal patronage in BC in order to boost the number of Liberal seats there???

If a softwood lumber deal ever does get struck it will be no thanks to some corporate figure head like Emerson. there are probably a host of bureaucrats in the department of International Trade working day and night on this file and if its solved it will be no thanks to a deadbeat like Emerson.

If harper wants Emerson in his cabinet sooooo badly, why not just appoint him to the Senate? it worked for Fortier? Or he can resign from Parliament and be the new canadian amabassador to the US - that jobs seems to be open.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 13 February 2006 01:30 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Modest Mook:
Hehe, I'm still a NDP supporter on these forums |snip|

Who would make a better foriegn trade cabinet minister? I'd ultimately hate to see the best man for the position not get the job because theres a bunch of angry liberals (and strategic voting NDPers who I laugh at) who want to bring him down.


If you are an NDP supporter then I have to wonder why you'd support David Emerson as trade minister.

For the record I (a card carrying Conservative) voted for Emerson in this election. Why? I wanted the best *opposition* member in the house. In retrospect I ought to have swallowed hard and voted for Waddell, but with numerous dipper friends indicating that they were unwilling to vote for Waddell, I couldn't make that leap.

After Liberal support peaked it became obvious that the Conservatives were going to win at least a minority; I wanted to see an effective opposition in place and believed Emerson could play a key role there, provided he was willing to remain in the house.

Because of Emerson's strong partisan attacks on Conservative social policies, I did not expect him to cross, even though on issues of economic policy his ideas (and the Liberal's in general) are compatible with Conservative economic doctrine.

Emerson crossed for pure power and I do not support his crossing as it violates at a very basic level the trust the electorate place in their representatives. Without trust and representation our particular form of democracy falls apart.

Now, the question is how can *you* support Emerson.

Emerson is billed as being "the best man" for the job, and that's ok as long as you agree with his economic and trade policies -- policies which are perfectly compatible with those of Jim Flaherty and Gordon Campbell, not to mention Albertan economic leaders including Ralph Klein, Shirley McClellan, Jim Dinning, and Stockwell Day.

If all those folks are ok with you, then Emerson indeed is your guy.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
cfkane
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12023

posted 13 February 2006 01:33 PM      Profile for cfkane        Edit/Delete Post
Well, you can forget about David Emerson resigning. Thirty minutes ago he issued the statement that he has no intention of leaving the Conservative cabinet, and intends to ride out the “partisan protests”. He dismissed the weekend rallies of disgruntled voters as merely “partisan zealots”.

Click here: Emerson vows to stay as converted Tory cabinet minister despite protests

I guess we now know where the power lies. So come on people, listen to Harper and Emerson, and stop your “superficial criticism” and whining. Those “zealots” who voted for him as a Liberal, and who are now protesting, should just shut up!

Wow, isn’t it wonderful to have the open, honest, ethical, and transparent government that Steven Harper promised us!!

[ 13 February 2006: Message edited by: cfkane ]


From: North York | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 February 2006 01:35 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm still hopeful that the federal ethics commissioner will rule that Harper broke the law by offering a reward for switching parties.

Wouldn't that be rich!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 February 2006 01:38 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who would make a better foriegn trade cabinet minister? I'd ultimately hate to see the best man for the position not get the job because theres a bunch of angry liberals (and strategic voting NDPers who I laugh at) who want to bring him down.

Well, if you believe that then I guess you don't believe in parliamentary democracy. You prefer the system they have in countries like the US where the "cabinet" is not composed of elected officals but rather of "experts" who are appointed on a non-partisan basis. Maybe harper should have appointed a few NDP and BQ MPs to his cabinet too. I'm sure there are many other non-Conservative MPs who are better qualified than some of the dunces in Harper's cabinet!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 13 February 2006 01:48 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Emerson this morning "If I am found to be guilty of wrongdoing, I will leave.", responding to the reports that his defection has been referred to the Federal Ethics Commissioner.
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 February 2006 01:56 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What if Harper is the one found guilty of wrongdoing for offering a reward for party switching? Will he also resign?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 13 February 2006 01:57 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by AWd:

Why is he the best MP? Just because he is not a Conservative (was not), or is there something else?


Nope, you pretty well hit it right on the head ... but even by the standards of the CPC there can only be at most 24 (opps, I mean 23 since one of those 24 isn't even an MP) possible CPC MPs who are considered better than Emerson, otherwise they'd be a cabinet minister rather than Emerson.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 13 February 2006 02:59 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
For the record I (a card carrying Conservative) voted for Emerson in this election.

Didn't you tell at least one interviewer you'd voted green?

Edited: Oops, I see you've addressed this in the post above.

[ 13 February 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 13 February 2006 03:21 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
S1m0n, yes, in the just concluded election I voted for Emerson; it was 2004 that I voted Green. More detail in a post I made in this thread: Favorite Petition Comments

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
I voted Green in 2004, not in 2006. I voted for Emerson in 2006 believing that he would be part of an effective *opposition*.

Here's how and why I have voted in the past two federal elections:

In 2004 I could not vote for Conservative candidate Jesse Johl; it was common knowledge within the party that I held a low opinion of Mr. Johl as a candidate. Unable to support the candidate in my own riding, I helped another. In that election I was the Secretary of the Vancouver South (as an external director) CPC riding association and like many others from that riding helped out on the campaign of Vancouver South candidate Dr. Victor Soo Chan.

Incidentally Dr. Soo Chan didn't have any chance of winning, but I was impressed with his pro bono work (he is a dentist) for financially disadvantaged people in the riding and was pleased to help out. I didn't help Van South run this years campaign, although the campaign office furniture and materials are again stored in my garage.

In 2006 I did not vote for Conservative candidate Kanman Wong. I know Kanman from the former Progressive Conservative Party and believe him to be an honourable person, and truly respect the work effort he put into his campaign. Yet I voted for David Emerson, preferring him to sit in opposition than Ian Waddell because I believed that while he was there, Emerson would be a formidable opposition member.

My expectation in fact was that Emerson would soon tire of sitting there, and would resign and force a by-election, at which point hopefully some new blood from all three major parties would be drafted to run a new race.

That expectation partially correct, but I never expected Emerson to cross the floor on day one of the new government, thus robbing not only Vancouver Kingsway but all of Canada an opposition critic of some ability.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 13 February 2006 03:37 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He dismissed the weekend rallies of disgruntled voters as merely “partisan zealots”.
I guess he's picked up a few lessons from Belinda who weathered the conservative storm in Aurora.

Will Shapiro be around long enough to investigate anything?


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 13 February 2006 03:41 PM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I guess we now know where the power lies. So come on people, listen to Harper and Emerson, and stop your “superficial criticism” and whining. Those “zealots” who voted for him as a Liberal, and who are now protesting, should just shut up!

Hehe, theres a great quote I think Emerson is having alot of difficulties realizing that the voters of Kingsway didn't vote for him personally, they simply voted a Liberal over a Conservative.

I guess this is mostly to Stockholms posts... When you vote for a candidate... Are you voting for the party or the person? Was your vote influenced in anyway by the actual candidate? Had the Liberals withdrawn Emerson and replaced them with a small dog wearing a "Go Liberals!" sweater, would the dog still have won that vote? I know it's a little extreme for an example, but the question I'm asking is "Do we vote for the candidate or the party?". In my mind (obviously not the norm), I place as much consideration into the candidate as I do the Party.

Did Kingsway vote in Emerson for Emerson to represent them (and Emerson... perhaps incrorrectly... thought the best way to represent was by crossing the floor), or did the voters of Kingsway vote to be represented by a Liberal (the face/name completely meaningless)?

[ 13 February 2006: Message edited by: Modest Mook ]


From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 February 2006 03:56 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think there is a gigantic weight of evidence that the vast, vast, vast majority of people vote mainly for the party and the party leader and that the local candidate is only a secondary consideration - especially in very urban transient ridings.

In any case, if Emerson really thought that it was all about him, he could have simply run as an independent and announced that he planned on joining the caucus of whichever party formed the government! Then at least people would have known who they were voting for. I don't suppose that Emerson ever said before the election that he planned on becoming a Conservative if they won the most seats. If he had said that in advance and he was still re-elected then I doubt if anyone would be demanding his resignation.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 13 February 2006 04:36 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We are now at a critical point in this controversy. Emerson, who betrayed the people who elected him, now decides that he won't resign either, because those who want a fair election are "zealots".

If the protests slow or stop, he'll stay on. But if protests continue to interfere with the Conservative story-line that they are new and uncorrupted, he will become a permanent albatross, and Harper will force him out.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 13 February 2006 04:52 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
..And if the tories get away with this, they'll betray democracy and the electorate again and again.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 13 February 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If the protests slow or stop, he'll stay on. But if protests continue to interfere with the Conservative story-line that they are new and uncorrupted, he will become a permanent albatross, and Harper will force him out.

Conservative agenda is going to include electoral reform of some manner (Alberta in particular, but others as well, have been pushing for senate reform for years)... If there is no reform from Harper, he will see a pretty good backlash from his staunch supporters (possibly worse then how some turned on him for Emerson). So all signs pointing to change of some nature.

I wonder if a Harper led gov't will pass legislation making what Emerson and O'Connor got away with illegal (or atleast require some form of electoral approval).


From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 February 2006 05:47 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Polunatic:
I guess he's picked up a few lessons from Belinda who weathered the conservative storm in Aurora.

There wasn't one. Her support was personal. She wouldn't have had a prayer running as a Con.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 13 February 2006 07:07 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE] Conservative agenda is going to include electoral reform of some manner [QUOTE]

They will try to call it "democratic reform" and limit it to more free votes in the House of Commons or something.

An elected Senate is no reform at all, particularly the "Triple-E" Senate they talk about, which involves giving equal Senate representation to Ontario and Prince Edward Island.

Running as a candidate in a province-wide election
involves huge expenses which only right-wing candidates can manage (since they sell their souls to large corporations.)

The truth is that a serious agenda for democratic reform has to include proportional representation. Anything less is fraudulent.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 13 February 2006 07:42 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that Belinda could have been as big a story as Emerson but the CPC blew it. Instead of bringing up ethics they started tossing around the "whore" "prostitute" line which made anyone hesitate to agree with anti-switching because they didn't want to be associating themselves with that utter filth.

If the CPC had stuck to it being deceitful they'd have been able to nail Belinda and Martin on it. When they started tossing around those euphemisms THAT became the story.

Is it true that with Grewal the Ethics Commissioner dude said that the Liberals would have been guilty if they had offered the bribe of a position and that's the ONLY reason why they were not found guilty?

Any bets on how the Ethics dude will rule? I bet he'll support Harper.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 February 2006 07:50 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are two other factors that are different about the Belinda defection.

1. She claimed to have left the Tory party due to conflict with harper and actual policy differences over tactics and social conservativism and national unity. You can choose to believe it or not, but she did at least have a story to tell about why she left the Conservatives. Emerson is quite blunt about having no problem at all with the Liberal party. he just did it to remain a cabinet minister!

2. Belinda crossed over and within 24 hours it was superseded in the media by the big story of the confidence vote in the House that was decided by 1 vote. This time the Tories have stupidly alloewed this issue to fester for over a week in the absemce of any other news from Ottawa.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 13 February 2006 07:53 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good points.
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 13 February 2006 07:53 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good points.
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 13 February 2006 07:58 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cfkane:
Well, you can forget about David Emerson resigning. Thirty minutes ago he issued the statement that he has no intention of leaving the Conservative cabinet, and intends to ride out the “partisan protests”. He dismissed the weekend rallies of disgruntled voters as merely “partisan zealots”.

Click here: Emerson vows to stay as converted Tory cabinet minister despite protests

I guess we now know where the power lies. So come on people, listen to Harper and Emerson, and stop your “superficial criticism” and whining. Those “zealots” who voted for him as a Liberal, and who are now protesting, should just shut up!

Wow, isn’t it wonderful to have the open, honest, ethical, and transparent government that Steven Harper promised us!!


Well, at least he's honest! It was so much more difficult with Jean Chretien, but with Stephen Harper, things are, well, ever-so-much-more fun.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 13 February 2006 07:59 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who refers to people in their riding who vote as zealots?
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986

posted 13 February 2006 08:06 PM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
Who refers to people in their riding who vote as zealots?

People who aren't planning on running in that riding ever again?


From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 13 February 2006 08:08 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Morale low in Conservative caucus after shaky start for government

"People [some of the MPs who have been passed over] are not very happy and it's a big mistake. Throughout the election campaign, Harper talked about ethics and what did he do on the first day of his government? I don't know who advised him on this. Yesterday, I received some calls from members of the party and everybody was wondering why did Harper do this," said one top Conservative source.

From the same article:

- NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.), who will be a member of the Commons Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, told The Hill Times that his committee would review and scrutinize the Emerson "scandal" once the House resumes.

- Meanwhile, Former Liberal MP Don Boudria argued that the focus of Mr. Emerson's decision to cross the floor should be on Prime Minister Harper and not Mr. Emerson.

"Is it not Stephen Harper who bragged to the media that he had approached Mr. Emerson offering him a Conservative Cabinet post during the same week that he was elected as a Liberal? Is it not Harper who appointed him to Cabinet? Did Harper not know that only 18 per cent of the voters in Vancouver Kingsway voted Conservative less than a week earlier? The answers to all these questions are yes, yes, and yes. Therefore, it is Stephen Harper who is responsible for this appointment, and focussing on rule changes simply gets him off the hook instead of being accountable.

"This is Prime Minister Harper's decision, and he should be answering for it."


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 13 February 2006 08:10 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the open contempt he, and many other Conservative talking heads are showing, with their spin, is intresting. I hope they continue on this path, it will only make people more angry. One of the new lines of attack include that the Mayor, Premier, and buisness community, think its a good thing, therefore its a good thing. This is tied into Faith's excellent post, of the entire disconnect thing. It only angers people more, to be talked down to in such ways, so I can only hope that Emerson et al keep saying stupid things.
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 13 February 2006 08:13 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its not often that I agree with Don Boudria but in this case he is bang on target.
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 13 February 2006 08:16 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper's response will be a haughty "let them eat cake".
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 13 February 2006 10:02 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I feel rather offended at being called a partisan zealot. Thought I was a citizen voting in a democracy. Oh well.

Harpo is certainly keeping a low profile. I thought for sure he would come out of hiding today, Monday, and try to calm the waters. Or at least send Kenney or whomever is going to be the face of this administration.

Is he off on one of his well known sulks already?


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 14 February 2006 02:12 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A comment about another country said incoming prime ministers give their favourites the departments they were critics for, giving them a head start, while putting the less favoured into new roles where they will be tied up for months learning the ropes, keeping them out of the Prime Minister's way.

Let's apply that to Harper's cabinet. Here's who kept their departments:
Vic Toews: Justice and Attorney General
Loyola Hearn: Fisheries and Oceans
Gordon O'Connor: National Defence
Jim Prentice, Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Bev Oda: Canadian Heritage

Short list, eh?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
cfkane
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12023

posted 14 February 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for cfkane        Edit/Delete Post
"I feel rather offended at being called a partisan zealot. Thought I was a citizen voting in a democracy. Oh well."

No, no, no. Under the new Harper “rules”, you are a “zealot”, especially if you think that voting for your local candidate entitles you to believe he will remain with the party you chose for longer than 24 hours!

You should stop your “superficial criticism” and whining, since it is “annoying” both David Emerson and the “standards and ethics” that the NEW Conservative party stand for. They will not put up with such nonsense as a voter thinking he has the right to chose what party will represent him and once Harper makes up his mind you should just accept his infallible decision. Harper knows what's best, not you.

In fact, under the NEW Steven Harper government, you do NOT even have to run for office at all! Like Fortier, you can join the government in power (providing you are "generous" enough); hang around for a while in political decision making, receive a huge salary, play all you want, and then, maybe, just maybe, you can decide if you really like this game and wish to seek election by the voters – in maybe a year, or two or three.

It’s all called democracy at work.


From: North York | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
BCseawalker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8468

posted 14 February 2006 05:43 PM      Profile for BCseawalker        Edit/Delete Post
Now there's an online petition whose target is Stephen Harper himself.

I wonder what kind of response it will get. It's asking for people's addresses, rather than just city/province. That could put some off,athough most signators have already realized they needn't specify. One worry is about the fickle nature of the general public and the danger of diluting people's anger across too many issues.


From: Unspecified | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 14 February 2006 05:59 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting information on the new poll.

Seriously, where is Stephen Harper?

*Emerson and other troublesome cabinet appointments
*former Stockwell Day buddy (Ezra Levant) publishing cartoons that have enraged many Muslims and sparked rioting and burning of embassies, just as Canada's troops are building up to engage in Afghanistan
*Hamas elected in Palestine
*Dick Cheney shooting a liberal (OK not so much that one)

What is "canada's" position on all of this? Is Harper sulking? Is he planning to govern by stealth from the bat cave?


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 14 February 2006 06:33 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
On the subject of Hamas, I wonder what Harpers position is on talk of the US/Israel destabilising Hamas in order that they might have another election with more suitable results.
Would he support that policy?

From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 14 February 2006 06:35 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
Hamas destabilisation article was front page headline in online edition of NY Times last night..
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 14 February 2006 09:25 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
Seriously, where is Stephen Harper?

*former Stockwell Day buddy (Ezra Levant) publishing cartoons that have enraged many Muslims and sparked rioting and burning of embassies, just as Canada's troops are building up to engage in Afghanistan


quote:
Stephen Harper today issued the following statement:

“Free speech is a right that all Canadians enjoy; Canadians also have the right to voice their opinion on the free speech of others. I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets. While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others. I commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically."


http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/40561


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
asterlake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11892

posted 14 February 2006 11:22 PM      Profile for asterlake        Edit/Delete Post
It's been a lousy week or Harper except for the reaction of the Islamic bigots. That's a big winner for reformatories.

Layton, the chickenshit, has been silent in defending freedom of speech. He should be in the forefront protecting our freedoms and defending Canadians against religious zealots.

Attack the Tories because of Ezra publishing these cartoons and you'll consolidate even further the Tories strong hold on farmers and Joe sixpack. they aren't stupid and they are right in applauding folks like Ezra to stand up to the religious whackos.


From: Exshaw | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 February 2006 11:49 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by asterlake:
It's been a lousy week or Harper except for the reaction of the Islamic bigots. That's a big winner for reformatories.


Excuse me? Which reaction on which Islamic bigots are you referring to?

I heard he reacted favourably to the measured, reasonable and peaceful reaction by the Canadian Islamic community to the WS attempt to provoke violence, but I must have missed his announcement on any "Islamic bigots".


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 14 February 2006 11:50 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/40561


Thank you, RealityBites. I finally heard that on the 6 o'clock news.

Directives from on high. I don't disagree with Harper in what he says -- how could anyone? It's so mom and apple pie.

Harper's still in hiding for one reason or another.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 15 February 2006 08:01 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, in fact today's Globe has a story headlined "Why has Stephen Harper stayed out of sight?"

http://tinyurl.com/7ayzb (No registration needed)

quote:
Stephen Harper will re-enter the public realm this afternoon to offer a few patriotic words about Flag Day before returning to the prime ministerial bunker and his preferred task of shaping government.

...

But Mr. Harper's silence as Mr. Emerson squirmed -- and as questions were raised about the appointment of Conservative campaign co-chair Michael Fortier as a senator and Public Works Minister -- may have seemed a poor decision in some quarters. Political strategists say this would be a good time to focus public attention elsewhere.

"Not every day needs to be about the Prime Minister," said Rick Anderson, a strategist who was once chief of staff to Reform Party leader Preston Manning. "But if he's not going to be visible and doing things, then you would expect other people would be -- and it's all gone completely quiet right now."


I wonder... if when Harper ventures out today he sees his shadow does that mean six more weeks of Conservative government?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 15 February 2006 11:09 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Members of Harper's key Priorities and Planning Committee:
quote:
Chair Stephen Joseph Harper
Vice-Chair Lawrence Cannon
Vic Toews
Jim Prentice
Peter Gordon MacKay
Chuck Strahl
Stockwell Day
John Baird
Maxime Bernier
James Michael Flaherty
Marjory LeBreton

Provides strategic direction on government priorities and expenditure management, and
ratifies committee recommendations.



No elected women?

Compare this with the above list of those who kept their departments from their previous critic assignments:
Vic Toews: Justice and Attorney General
Jim Prentice, Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Loyola Hearn: Fisheries and Oceans
Gordon O'Connor: National Defence
Bev Oda: Canadian Heritage

Who would have thought that Vic Toews and Jim Prentice were the only two with inside tracks from the last House?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 15 February 2006 11:22 AM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I expected Prentice to have key roles; his appointment as Minister for INAC was one thing; being a member of Priorities and Planning, and Chair of Operations, has largely gone unnoticed by the press -- he's become very plugged in.

Prentice is a one-day leadership contestant for the party and has the right stuff to become Prime Minister. I guess Harper is thinking about the future and also tying up leadership hopefulls by keeping them busy and silent - these people will not be speaking out of turn against the government.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 15 February 2006 12:11 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The West is in:

The 11-person P & P Committee:

Five from the West:
Stephen Harper
Chuck Strahl
Stockwell Day
Vic Toews
Jim Prentice

Three from Ottawa-Gatineau:
Vice-Chair Lawrence Cannon
John Baird
Marjory LeBreton

One from the rest of Ontario:
James Flaherty

One from the rest of Quebec:
Maxime Bernier

One from Atlantic Canada:
Peter MacKay


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca