I’m now accepting nominations for “a blog post by a professional journalist offering an award premised on a statement he alleges exists, but cannot substantiate with direct linkage.”
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.
(Unless the argument being made is that there is a clever strategy behind Emerson’s appointment that is the Harper equivalent of sending out a gender-equity neutralizing stalking horse…. but I’m not buying that.)
Note to various external chatterers: a response does not a feud make.
Which, for Mr. Wells is indeed fortunate. I come into the electronic commentary arena with two decades of dog show politics under my belt. Think perpetual campaigning, but with bigger egos, shorter fuses, fatter wallets,crazier nutbars, access to sharp objects, and Rottweilers present at every debate. I’m pretty sure I could take him.
So, let’s have a little fun as well;
Movie Meme Hijack Thread
Redemption! Stephen Harper’s Darth Emerson – finally turning away from the Dark Side….
What to do if Belinda wants back? “Arliss! Where are you going with that gun?”
Would Graham have taken the bait?
Add your own in the comments!
update – there’s a very good point made re: the mandatory byelection argument by ol hoss at 06:09 PM, in a quote by Harper – that in the formation of the new Conservative Party, so many members changed party affiliation that it would have sparked scores of byelections.
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.