BOMBS AWAY.....

I think you got his attention......

Oh, and can we ban all overused Pete Townsend references for, oh the next month or so....

A "logical comparison", is the defection of B.S compared to the defection of Emerson...

Token on topic commentary: Why do the moral relativists hate the softwood lumber industry?

Here's some news: it appears Maryantonett "Let Them Eat Lead" Flumian just got demoted from DM to ADM (what is a "deputy head", exactly?), among other things:

Prime Minister announces changes in the senior ranks of the Public Service
NEWS RELEASE
February 7, 2006
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was pleased to announce today the following changes in the senior ranks of the Public Service. The changes reflect the smaller, more streamlined Cabinet structure of the new government:
...
Maryantonett Flumian, currently Deputy Minister of Service Canada, becomes Deputy Head of Service Canada and Associate Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1001

And there's a door prize for the person who can find a logical comparison between the Bush nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court and the David Emerson defection,
because, like, we all know how badly that turned out for George W. when all the dust had settled.

The comparison Kate, is with the reaction among the party faithful, not in the exact details of the event.

You're welcome. I'll take the flattened squirrel.

Well, I asked him privately where I used the Stronach defection "as proof of Martin's moral vacuity". The only quote he could provide was one that was limited to criticism of Stronach herself.

So, basically, he just pulled it out of his ass.

I've even offered that it might even exist - (though I can't think of where, since Martin's moral vacuity hardly needed to be established at that point, and there were examples lot more compelling than saving his political hide.)

FWIW - I think this National Post editorial places about the right weight on the controversy.

right on ti-guy. honest info - not painted.

If the award is for all bloggers (not just professional journalists), you and Anonalogue would both be in line for the award.

*

That's a litlle LONG for an award name.

How about the "Castigation and Fabrication without Elucidation" award in honour of Wells' blogging attributes.

*

The comparison Kate, is with the reaction among the party faithful, not in the exact details of the event.

And their reaction has been proven to be so wise. Not.

Alito's first act was to weaken the penalty of death.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty

>i>O'Connor retired on Tuesday and was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, whose first case was the death penalty appeal from Missouri. He broke ranks with the court's conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who voted to allow the execution of Michael Taylor. They were outvoted by Alito and the court's more liberal members.

If one were going to do so, the more logical comparison, Ti-Guy, is not with Emerson, but Fortier.

A Supreme Court nomination requires an up or down vote - Emerson has been sworn in. The party faithful will be disgruntled until another decision they don't like comes along to replace it. It's the nature of conservative politics - we're more independant and contrarian than nanny-state loving liberals.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/001945.html

"How much moral strength does it take to take a bribe - a ministership - from Paul Martin"
~ Kate McMillan

You need to clean your glasses, Ian.

Perhaps I am beating a dead horse here but I do not think the Emerson/Stronach comparisons are valid.

In a nutshell Harper was looking for someone with the best skills for the position of International Trade Minister (Softwood lumber expertise among his qualifications-haven't seen much mention of that aspect). There was no one as qualified as Emerson on the Conservative side. Harper called Emerson with a job offer. Accepting the job would mean having to cross the floor. In other words the floor crossing came as a result of a job offer. And no government is propped up nor defeated with his move.

Stronach was approached with an offer to cross the floor. As was Inky Marks and Gurmant Grewal. This indicates that the Liberal offer was not intended to fill a specific position within their government

The Liberals were looking for anyone to prop up their shakey government, one that had lost control of the house. If she agreed to cross the floor she would be offered a cabinet post. In Belindas case, the job offer came as a result of her agreeing to cross the floor. Her movement allowed the Liberals to defeat a non-confidence vote.

{spellcheck}

"substantiate"

{/spellcheck}

Are you denying you wrote that? Suggesting that Paul Martin did something criminal and offered a bribe regarding the Stronach affair?

You accuse Martin of bribing someone, didn't you?

In your other comment thread:
"Hey Peter - I'll offer you the same challenge I've given Paul Wells (who still hasn't come up with the goods) - find the post here in which I jumped on Paul Martin for luring Belinda Harper to his cabinet."

I'd say that accusing someone of criminal wrongdoing is "jumping on Paul Martin," wouldn't you?

This corner is now accepting nominations for the first Semicolon Award, for the most comically bad use of semicolons by a female Blogging Tory.

Oh, for the love of God. You've got to be kidding me. Will these quacks ever quit it?

Canadian Conservatives are further to the left than bloody Democrats! (ie, John Kerry and his "capturing terrorists and killing them.") Please. These people need to get a life.

This was a brilliant political move, as I've stated in my blog, and Tories who can't handle this should jump aboard the other train right now.

"This was a brilliant political move, as I've stated in my blog,"

Encouraging Stronach to cross the floor was also a "brilliant political move."

Why is anyone, including you, Kate, bothering to comment on the relative morality of Emerson/Harper? It simply doesn't matter. This is not a philosophers' club we're talking about here, it's the ugly, pragmatic world of politics. With Stronach/ Brison, the Conservative Party lost (?), with Emerson, they won. The score is now 2-1. A few idealists aside, (and I mean very few), these guys are essentially used car salesmen, today they'll sell you a Ford, tomorrow a GMC, the next day a Dodge, whatever you're buying at the moment. To Paul Wells, I'd say, stop gloating, and quit wasting everyones' time trying to think up a clever name for an award. Spend your energy in watching the actions of politicians from all parties, and see that they all live up to their campaign promises.Keep an especially sharp eye on those who have access to our money. If you want to send an award to anyone, give "Political Whore" trophies to all the politicians,at every level, who deserve it. That will create an entire industry and employ a lot of people for years .

Who cares what any of us think? (I'm a Tory supporter and utterly nauseated at the Emerson switch.) The people of his riding should be allowed to decide whether to recall this MP of dubious legitimacy.

FYI Hearing partisans of either side try to make their principles fit grubby situation after grubby situation, Liberal or Tory, is making a lot of people want to ignore the entire process altogether. Our votes truly mean nothing.

Kate,

Inkless Wells!

Mr Wells has apparently cursed himself with his choice of Blog Name.

There is a Chinese Proverb: "The palest ink is better than the best memory"

You've just updated this proverb to:

"The palest link is better than the best memory"

My entry: Miers was a nomination that came out of nowhere, proved unsustainable, and blew up in the President's face. Emerson was an appointment that came out of nowhere, and ... we'll see.

Thankyou Grammergeek. Fixed.

And Thickslab, it's my blog and I'll semicolon if I want to. (Just like I spell commentor with an "o".)

Harper invites Emerson to join cabinet based on credentials. Martin invites Belinda to save his government, a pure numbers game. This is so not the same thing.

The Fortier thing just stinks, however.

I'm completely in agreement with Ward. The Emerson move was about providing expertise to the government. Not about providing expertise to the CP party; expertise to the government.

It has nothing to do with politics; nothing to do with the 'power of the party'. The Stronach move had nothing to do with expertise (she has none); it had to do with only one thing. Party Power. She provided a 'body-count' to maintain the Liberal Political Party in power.

Emerson is providing expertise to a government. The Liberal party has never been interested in expertise; it is interested only in power. Chretien- had only one focus; power. His own power. Martin was interested in only one thing - Liberal power. Neither was interested in Canada. Neither was interested in government for the good of Canada.

What is remarkable about Harper - is his focus on Canada. Not on power. Not his power. Not the power of the Conservative Party. He didn't need Emerson for any body-count. But, he did need his expertise - for the good of Canada.

We simply aren't used to such a perspective and therefore, sneer and mock. I think we are in for an enormous change. Finally, a government devoted, not to its own power-politics, but to Canadians. Quite a a change.

Yankee-Conservative-Pro-Harper-Tangential-Statement-Of-Annoyance:

I do get tired of all those opining that Bush's former nominee to the US Supreme Court, Harriet Miers is unqualified for the Supreme Court.

Please don't make such an inaccurate statement about Ms. Miers in any argument pro or con PM Harper's Cabinet appointments, as it's simply inaccurate.

Those making such statements are apparently too damn lazy to do a 5 minute background search on this lady, a fine legal scholar. She'd be AT LEAST as good a Justice as half those left-wing appointee drones warming a chair and warping traditional Anglophone Jurisprudence on both the US and Canadian Supreme Courts.

For those who care to do some reading on Ms. Miers, you might start here: http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/leaders/Miers/Miers_bio.html

E.T.
Yes, and if you say that enough times, you may start to believe it.

I know I would like to see (fill in your personal favorite here -- mine right now is David Dingwall) hooked up like Alex in A Clockwork Orange, and made to watch a film of (in this case)his expense account, and compensation package, and pension, over and over again until it makes him sick too.

Just re-read that link.. my apologies, that quote is attributed to a commenter, not Kate.

Actually, Vin, I didn't need to repeat it to believe it. I'm not a mindless person who only accepts words that dominate the sight or hearing. I analyzed the situation, using reason, before I spoke about it. And, I don't need to insult anyone when I speak about it.

I considered a situation where a leader of a government wishes to govern in as best and productive a manner as possible; that is - beyond party politics. Harper has mentioned before, that his government seeks to govern beyond the strictures of party politics. Within such a perspective, the focus has to be on expertise - not politics.

Comparing BS with DE is simply unfounded.

PMSH + DE = Head-hunting
PMPM + BS = Ass-saving

If you want to make it about economics...
PMSH bought Canada a cabinet minister.
PMPM bought himself a vote.

If you want to go sports...
I'll trade Brison and Stronach for Emerson anyday of the week.

Stephen Harper gained nothing politically for the defection of Emerson, beyond a 'nyah nyah'.
People have been dreaming about a day when party affiliation made no difference in choosing who will govern. Well they got it yesterday.

Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

Speech To The Bristol Electors ...

Excerpt:

Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs—and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience,

he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living.

These he does not derive from your pleasure—no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent.

If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior.

But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination;

and what sort of reason is that in which the determination precedes the discussion, in which one set of men deliberate and another decide, and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments? >>

http://www.rapp.org/url/?O8W8WQE4
ourcivilisation.com

Geez. What is with people's (especially the media's) obsession with consistency?

As for the PW-SDA fued....

First of all, people change. Feelings change over time. Is that not allowed PW?

Secondly, bloggers, unlike journalists, don't have to be either partisan or non-partisan. They do not have allegiance to the party at all costs. But here is the important point. They can also be happy when things go their ideal way. Why not? They are not tied down to some veil of objectivity. They are thoroughly subjective...and, as all free spirits, are not even tied down to their own previous principles. Some call it successive revelation; others call it paradox.

There is nothing more satisfactory to some people than to call others hypocrites. It is pride. Nothing else.

Journalists, openly at least, can't be outspokingly partisan. When Paul Wells writes his posts flaming the contradictions of conservative bloggers like SDA, has he forgotten that, unlike himself, that the blogger can openly be happy to cheer for an end result that is satisfactory to him/her?

I mean, come on. No one is objective here. Not even I-voted-for-Chretien-in-1993 writer Paul Wells. All those possible Liberal leadership speculation by PW and others, as even Warren Kinsella, displays the media's disconnect with many people. I mean, when Paul Wells writes about Dion and others, I can't help but get the feeling he (and other commentators obsessed with the topic) is (are) looking for another Liberal leader he can vote for - since we all knew how much PW railed on PM.

Admit the subjectivity of all; admit that people are paradoxicall; admit that bloggers are a funny mix of partisan and non-partisanship. What's the problem?

Can't we just all get along without the need to show how journalists are more internally coherent than bloggers are?

Gee, I really want to vote Liberal, like I always have, but they scare me. The Liberals are scary.

Paul Martin is scary. Scott Brison is frightening. Ken Dryden's anti-family views haunt me.

Organized crime makes me pee my pants and so does money laundering. Stealing public money to cheat in elections frightens me to no end.

Bill Graham? Scary as hell to anyone outside the gay village.

Ujjal Dosanjh scares me; I don't trust him.

I'm scared of Liberals. Scared witless.

The moral equivilency of the scary, amoral people who think Emerson = Stronach scares the hell out of me.

I'm scared that Canada's trade-dependant economy has been put in jeopardy by Liberal Anti-Americanism.

I'm scared that I might get shot by a thug like Vivi Leimonis and Jane Creba. That scares me.

As a longtime gay Liberal activist in downtown Toronto, it felt strange voting for Stephen Harper, I admit it.

I was scared.

Scared.

But now that he's gone and recruited the best possible MP to fix the softwood lumber issue - David Emerson - I am not scared anymore. Can David Emerson save the Canadian economy and the softwood industry from the scary, scary Liberals? Of course he can. I am optimistic, happy, and hopeful.

Graham should not be a public official in this country period. Prison would be more suitable. Most reasonable people have no problem with homosexuality, live and let live, who cares. But adults should choose sex partners responsibly regardless of sexual preference.

Excuse my ignorance but I've seen the word 'meme' more and more frequently and don't understand its' meaning. An explanation please.

Thanks in advance

Voting is a waste of time.

Scott Brison is frightening.

Yeah, he's got a bit of a Botox-gone-wrong look to him, dosen't he?

Significant Missing Minister in Prime Minister Harper's Cabinet:

Minister of State (Multiculturalism)

(Shhhh, do not tell anyone.... multiculturalism is dead as the dodo.)

Keep this quiet; no comments allowed, by order, fatwaa.

Paul's point isn't very clear, which is rare for him. Martin's moral vacuity lay not in enticing a member to cross over, but in playing a strange parliamentary version of "Simon Says" in which the expressed will and intentions of the opposition parties were ignored on the pretext of form.

I am reminded once again, from the actions of the barbarians per the Danish cartoons, to the comments in todays papers and the blogs over the last 24 hours expressing uninformed, illogical, irrational dissatisfaction with Mr. Harper's cabinet selections, that the human species doesn't deserve to exist.

My apologies to the few of you who have figured it out, enjoy it while you can. I know I am.

It's hard to speak clearly with a mouth full of froth.
The Liberals only hope for power in the next 5-8 years is if Stephen Harper gets too close to a grassy knoll.

...oOOOooh I wish I was an Oscar Myer(C) weiner, then everybody be in love with meeeee, cuz if I was an Oscar Myer(C) weiner, then everybody be in love with meeeeeeeeeeee.

Dang, now that dumb song is stuck in my head...

;-)

oh, forgot, wanted to dedicate that song to Belimbo...

From Larry Zolf:

Harper’s cabinet is a very carefully balanced one. It does not have any more than three Alberta ministers. It also now has a minister from Vancouver, David Emerson and a minister from Montreal, lawyer and former president of the Tory party, Michael Fortier.

The Emerson move was a brilliant stroke by Harper. Harper went to see Emerson who was originally a Vancouver businessman discovered by Paul Martin. Martin made Emerson minister of trade in his ministry. Emerson was the leading star in British Columbia for Martin and Emerson brought other B.C. MPs to Martin with him.

Emerson calls himself a small ‘c’ liberal. In short, Emerson is a businessman who can serve very well the business interests of B.C. in the Harper government.

Emerson is really a business Liberal. Emerson says he did not refuse Harper’s offer because Harper has moved to the centre and was really close to the centre philosophy of the business Liberals. Emerson made the change easily and without guile because he wasn’t betraying his own principles. Emerson was simply recognizing Harper’s genuine need of a Vancouver voice in the cabinet.

The media has already jumped on Harper for the Emerson appointment. Barbara Yaffe of the Vancouver Sun said the appointment of Emerson was a breach of Harper’s ethics plan for clean, honest government. Yaffe said it was an ethical breach for a leader promising ethics in goverment.

That argument is stretching Harper’s commitment for clean government to an absurd conclusion. It is not unethical to ask an MP who is in opposition to join the government.

Paul Martin was not unethical when he wooed Belinda Stronach over to the government side. Martin was fighting for political survival and needed Stronach badly.

Harper, on the other hand, is not in a do-or-die battle as the new prime minister. Harper is already the clear darling of the media. The media has jumped on Emerson’s appointment to show how unbiased the media are.

Harper had every right to ask Emerson to join his cabinet. It was a brilliant move. No longer can the media taunt Harper for being shut out of the three big cities of Canada.

Harper’s appointment of Emerson is pure politics and has nothing to do with ethics. David Emerson and Belinda Stronach have a right to switch parties without suffering media abuse for their decisions.

Harper’s second brilliant move was to put Michael Fortier, an unelected campaign chief and a buddy of Brian Mulroney and national president of the party, in the very sensitive post of Public Works. Fortier will sit in the Senate.

The media says Harper was reneging on his promise to elect senators by putting Fortier in the Senate temporarily. Harper has not reneged on his elected Senate plank.

Fortier gives Harper another Quebec minister, one from Montreal, another city where the Tories were shut out. Fortier has been given Public Works, the ministry in which adscam played such a major role.

But Fortier is another gift from Mulroney to Harper. Fortier will be able to smell funny games going on in Quebec quickly and early. Mulroney’s favourite lady, Senator Marjory LeBreton, is now the Senate majority leader. >>> more
http://www.voy.com/178771/130939.html\
Posted by : Begbie.

Randy: a meme is the theory that an idea spreads much like a biological virus. An oversimplification I fear.

I've been trying to get info on how Emerson's riding really feels about this. That should be foremost on everyone's minds. How do those who live there and voted for him feel about this. Are they relieved? Are they mad as hell?

I've been reading a lot of knee-jerk reactions, and emotionally I agree with them. However, despite the fact that we live in an informational superhighway, some things do take time to sort out, to get ACCURATE information.

So far in all the news I can get in Vancouver, they think it's a great thing. Does anyone on this thread have real news on this?

Let's give this time, before we barf out more rhetoric.

More from Wells. Not sure why he thinks this is hard. Anyone want to check out 5 Liblog sites at random? Note that even if they NOW think BS should have gone through a byelection, they are still winners if they only raised that post-Emerson.

"One reader asked why I don't award commentators who were once delighted to welcome Belinda Stronach to the true and proper governing party, but who now feel that David Emerson has betrayed some sense of goodness. Call it the ADS Award. Fair point, and while I think it'll be a little harder to find nominees, we'll post 'em if we get any good ones."

What do you do if Belinda wants back in? You let her, of course. Anyone who wants in can get a cabinet posting in the new Conservative government.

Seems as though some people weren't nearly so concerned about MPs changing party affilliation in the below example. I didn't hear calls for byelections because, somehow, democracy had been subverted. Who are the hypocrites here?

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/yourview/your_turn_conservative.html

Stephen Harper: Let me give a concrete example of an alternative situation. The Conservative Party of Canada, the new Conservative Party was created because people left actually no less than three separate old caucuses, two old parties, and joined with a new party, and I think there is widespread consensus among not just members of the old parties, but members of the public as well that this was a good thing to create a stronger opposition, to end the fragmentation of the conservative movement in the country.

Now, you know, this kind of law could have forced us into a situation where we were having 75 byelections. So, you know, that's a problem with any of these proposals. We understand, I understand why people want them, and, believe me, there's a couple of cases that have happened where I'd love to have a law like this, but there's also a lot of downsides when you think it through. As I say, in a practical matter, I could see how party leaders could really abuse that particular provision to make it even more difficult for members who may disagree legitimately with their party to operate within the party.

Todd, I think I addressed the Belinda question in the post above.

Kate: Check out mkb's post on Paul Wells then and now

It's worth an update or a whole new post.

In my opinion, the only thing that stinks about Emerson is his joining in the choir of hyperbolic hysterical leftist rhetoric towards the end of the 2006 campaign. Perhaps he could explain exactly what he meant when he said a Harper government would let the poor die, etc.

However, Harper is trying to create a government of action and accomplishments, as well as a majority-winning team for 2008(?), and there is no question Emerson will help achieve those ends. The comparison to the Stronach defection is laughable and I thought Inkless was better than this knee-jerk simple-minded analysis. Not to mention, SH never once came out against Belinda's right to do what she did. In fact, SH was quite blase about it all along, outside of the "complexity" zinger. It was Peter who was crying in the potato patch.

I'm with you Kate...you're smarter than most journos and they can't stand it.

I have been asking people, who sneeringly point at the single incident of Emersons crossing the floor for a cabinet position as evidence that Harper and the Conservatives are as bad or worse than the Liberals and their 12 years of scandal soaked reign, what exactly did Harper or the Conservatives gain by this action?

Many have pointed out that now as a result, if you combine the Conservative seat total with the NDP seat total plus 1 independant, the Conservatives will now have a majortity!!!

Well, a coalition majority anyway.

That being said, we have already seen what happens when the NDP holds the balance of power.

So in reality, Harpers shrewd gambit, has really only strengthened Jack Laytons position in Parliament, by giving Jack and the NDP the ability to hold the deciding vote to pass legislation should they unanimously vote with a united Conservative vote. But at a price of course. So Harper was endeavoring to give Jack a bigger stake in goverment. Yeah, right.

But even if one ascribes to that theory it begs the quesion of why would the Conservatives need to.

Both the Bloc and the Liberals could, for a price, vote with the Conservatives to achieve a majority coalition. All this does is potentially give the NDP the same sway that the LIBs and BQ might enjoy.

So back to the original question. Just what do Harper and the Conservatives gain? A top notch Cabinet Minister is all that I can see.

And you are kidding yourself if you do not think that Harper was not 100% aware of the chain of events that this would set off. He plays the game about three moves ahead of most other players.

I think that this is a truly remarkable and positive move by Harper that will pay of sooner rather than later for all of Canada. He hired the best guy available for the job, not the best Conservative, or the best backroom supporter.

That the media has pretty much missed the positives to pimp the negative spin, is not surprising but disappointing.

When Emerson sorts out the mess that Vancouver 2010 has become, no one will remember how he got into cabinet, and the SH Conservatives will look very very good, again.

"The comparison to the Stronach defection is laughable"

Yea, laughable as to how similar it is.
If people want to believe that both B.S and Emerson served democracy, fine... Just don't ever expect me to sing it's praises.
If people want to believe that Emerson's defection is somehow DIFFERENT than B.S's...Whatever.
I know I'm true to myself and my principles.
What B.S did was wrong. What Emerson did was wrong. Period.

There is something else being missed in this debate over principles vs tactics.

Killer instinct and the importance of finishing off the opponant.

I'll go back to something I pointed out earlier - I presume that people want this minority Conservative government to actually get something accomplished.

Now, which parliament is more likely to produce results in terms of passed legislation? One in which Liberals are kept in uncertainty about their own MP loyalty, or one in which they are left unmolested and potential floor-crossers rebuffed to continue re-organizing and rebuilding?

As for those Liberals and lefties who are congratulating Conservative bloggers for their "integrity and intellectual honesty" in denouncing their own...

I will only remind you that "not everyone who flatters you is a friend."

PM's Liberals: sold cabinet to a clearly unqualified and undeserving half-wit in a desperate attempt to cling to power.

SH's Conservatives: offered chance to stay in cabinet to an eminently qualified, well respected, highly accomplished public servant to help solve the softwood lumber and Olympics messes, despite partisan differences, and despite gaining no political advantage in the process.

Still can't see the difference? I can.

Kate, I think you nailed it on your last comment. I think PMSH knows a lot more about the Liberals than all of us armchair polititians.With their problems and now their eligible members choosing not to stay, it will leave them SOL. No more will elections be fought on an issue by issue basis with the Liberals jumping from one side of the political spectrum to the other. The elections will be fought from a more philisophical left or right basis.

"One in which Liberals are kept in uncertainty about their own MP loyalty," This is a Good thing? To have members of the opposition lie in wait for the next juicy plum...
"or one in which they are left unmolested and potential floor-crossers rebuffed to continue re-organizing and rebuilding?"
Yea, I think I'm gonna go with the "unmolested" option...

"Now, which parliament is more likely to produce results in terms of passed legislation?"
A parliament led by a Prime Minister with a MANDATE from the Canadian people, willing to pass legislation that was promised during the election campaign.

I agree Kate that "not everyone who flatters you is a friend", and I should like to add that not everyone who criticises you is an enemy. For example, they could just be being a politician ;-)

Meanwhile, as usual, we have a country to run, and as usual many people are running around making excuses for doing something else instead.

Yes! It's a good thing! It's has the potential to perpetuate the internal dynamic that started with Chretien/Martin - the same type of dynamic that split the Conservatives and kept them in opposition for so many years - they didn't trust each other, and they refused to agree to disagree for the sake of achieving broader shared goals.

We want Liberals to be at each others throats. Their top leadership candidates have bailed. Now a star MP has switched sides. Keep the pressure on and they'll start turning on each other.

Harper didn't get a "mandate" to pass any legislation. That job isn't yet complete. Stop demanding he give them breathing room to get back on their feet, unless you really want 10 more years of the Liberals.

I agree with Vitruvius, if PMSH surrounds himself with "yes men" well you know where I'm going...

In the tight circles of inner management, it's usually ok to say what you may to the man with the big desk, IF your facts back it up.

Not in a way that I think Wells intended,

but in my opinion, the Miers nomination showed the complete dominance by conservatives of the discourse in American politics. In the U.S. the Liberals have conceded rational, adult-like debate to the various factions from the right, while the left - in complete disarray and dominated by the move on org/Micheal Moore crowd - has essentially left the playing field, content to shout insults from the sidelines.

In the instant case, the Liberals, so lacking in credibility from over a decade of corruption, have no voice in this debate whatsoever. The playing field is completely occupied by conservatives.

This is a good thing.

There's good reason to believe Ms. Miers was a decoy, never intended to make it to committee - a flashpoint to take the sting out of the Alito nomination. In other words - "oh, Democrats, Ms. Miers isn't qualified? OK, I'll give you qualified - Sam Alito (who just happens to be supremely conservative)."

"Harper didn't get a "mandate" to pass any legislation."
Then who HAS the mandate to pass legislation when parliament resumes??? The opposition? "That job isn't yet complete."

"Stop demanding he give them breathing room to get back on their feet,"
All I'm "demanding", is an end to this horsetrading bulls*it... Kinda reminds me of that Canadian politician who had seen too much of this type of political "endaround democracy", in his homeland of India. Defection for the sole purpose of gaining political power, shouldn't be a "vote-magnet"... Unless you live in Newmarket-Aurora

The Canadian people will decide if the Liberals deserve to "get back on their feet", in the next election... Whenever the opposition decides to call one.

Long Live Good Mr. Iron Man

What B.S did was wrong. What Emerson did was wrong. Period.

Just like the leftists, one size fits all.

In a minority government nobody has a mandate to pass legislation all on their own. They'll also have a struggle getting some of their legislation through the senate, I suspect.

Don't underplay how difficult this is going to be for the Conservatives - they have no natural allies in that parliament and every one they make a deal with to pass important legislation is going to demand a concession.

That's why they need to keep the Liberals off their game as long as possible. There's a better chance that they won't be organized enough to extract meaningful concessions in exchange for the survival of parliament. The ability of the Conservatives to pass legislation we want will diminish in direct proportion to the gathering strength of the Liberal Party.

Kate: "And Thickslab, it's my blog and I'll semicolon if I want to..."

------
Yeah, but it's those dangling participles ya gotta watch out for eh.

;-)

------
...we now return to regular programming...

"The ability of the Conservatives to pass legislation we want will diminish in direct proportion to"
Nothing. Prime Minister Stephen Harper not only has the Right to pass the legislation he promised during the election campaign, he... Has... The... Solem.. Duty... To...
Right?

"the gathering strength of the Liberal Party."
Will be decided by the voters, and the voters only. Did all of the people in Vancouver Kingsway vote Liberal in order to tremendously help Prime Minister Stephen Harper??? Seems like a strange version of "strategic voting"...

What does becoming and Independent MP change?

Kate's premise to garnering increased political power is to divide and conquer the Liberals. It is a strategy we have seen in the past with the Liberals where they played one part of the country against another. I'll agree it works.

I do not dispute that you try to bring like minded people together (Emmerson). But a cabinet post? Why couldn't Harper have suggested Emmerson sit as an Independent with a promise to make him second in command to the Minister of BC/Asian Gateway/2010 Sinkhole (sarcasm aside)? But I suppose that would not have had a high enough profile for such an accomplished ex/new minister.

I'll give Kate her due and give PMSH some more time. I will be watching how the Conservatives handle the following two items; a) the vacant supreme court seat, and b) the remaining vacant seats in the Senate.

I'm from Alberta where we have elected Senators-in-waiting. Still waiting.