After much prodding by other bloggers, I set this up for my own writings. The name is in honour of the two women that mentored me throughout my life on politics and intelligence issues, as well as being wonderful family members, now alas deceased. I hope to live up to their standards at this site.

Monday, February 06, 2006

The value of Harper's pledges on so far

I have spent much of today browsing through the Canadian blogosphere to see how PM Harper's first acts as PM have been sitting, both in the progressive side and the Blogging Tories side of things. It is interesting to note that most of the CPC commentators that were offended by today's actions (which I will get into detail shortly) were those with known aliases/blogs while most of those that were supportive were anonymous posters. I wonder why that is.

Let us start off with Mr. Emerson, that paragon of virtue that campaigned as a Liberal, denounced the CPC and Harper for a government while running, won as a Liberal, and suddenly decides he prefers being a Conservative (at least so long as he is a Conservative Cabinet member, I really doubt he would have crossed without the Cabinet position given his explanation for making this cross) to the Liberal he was elected 14 DAYS ago. This notion that it is an acceptable/ethical reason to cross as he did because he felt his riding would be better served with him being in Cabinet has got to be one of the most lame rationalizations I have ever heard. It is nigh well impossible to read that as anything other than he is more interested in power and being in government than he is what party he belongs to for that to be the case. If he had not crossed this would have been his last day as a Cabinet Minister. As for Harper, while I can understand wanting to increase seat totals in a minority, placing him in the Cabinet while bypassing some of his long time loyal supporters is not the best politics, let alone lousy optics. However, it is also clear that Harper bribed Emerson with a Cabinet position, the very thing he was so adamantly offended by last year with Stronach and that he claimed the Grewal proved the Liberals were unethical enough to do as "proven" by the recordings. So last year it was offensive, this year now that it is his Cabinet it is smart politics and good for Canada. Got to love that example of moral relativism.

However, it is not the Emerson appointment that really is offending me, it is the Fortier appointment. Here we have a man, who did not run for office suddenly not only being appointed to the Senate but into the Cabinet in a portfolio traditionally known to be a patronage appointment for rewarding party loyalists with government contracts. So who is Fortier? Well he is the Quebec chairman of the CPC/Harper election campaign. In other words a partisan loyalist of Harper. So we see a loyal party man who helped deliver Quebec seats to a Harper government being rewarded with two patronage appointments in the same freaking day. First he is Harper's first Senator selection, yet he was not elected or any of the other things Harper said his Senate seat choices would be. He is a Harper loyalist, a party flack even and his reward is a cushy Senate seat from which he can stay for the rest of his life if he wants, this idea that he will have to resign his seat for the next election sounds as convincing to my ears as MacKay's promise to never merge the PCPC and CA turned out to be. Not to mention Harper's pledge to not have an unelected member of his Cabinet broken as well.

That would be bad enough. However what really makes this particularly ugly is that this man is going to be responsible for the contracts let out by a Harper government, yet he will NOT be in Question Period to be questioned by the opposition parties, despite being one of the most important/influential Cabinet Ministries where government money is concerned and who gets it. This is by Harper's view transparency and accountability in action?!? At least Scott Brison was in the House to face the questions he dodged, this guy won't even be doing that. It is also really odd that a partisan unelected party loyalist is being given what has traditionally being the patronage rewards Ministry in our history. It leaves one forced to wonder what exactly Harper intends to do with that Ministry that Harper does not want the opposition being able to question the Minister about. If anything this is less transparent and less accountable than it was under the Martin regime, yet this is supposed to be a better more ethical and honest government as promised by Harper and the CPC as their central reason for Canadians to elect them? Massive hypocrisy here, and unfortunately what many of us feared would happen if Harper became PM.

The one moderately bright spot to me in all of this has been the generally negative response to Emerson from many (here are links within to many other BTs upset with this thanks to Damien's work) of the Blogging Tories. Andrew at Bound By Gravity is particularly disgusted, which I would have expected from him as he has always struck me as one of the most honest, honourable, and principle driven CPC online supporters. Unfortunately, one of the more common defences I have seen for Emerson is how he is qualified and a competent man for Cabinet while Stronach was clearly not as if that somehow made it all right what just happened. Another is the idea that it is more serious to cross the floor before a Confidence vote whereas doing so two weeks after an election is not so bad, again an argument that is nonsense. If anything Emerson's timing is worse than Stronach's, especially since Emerson is clearly acting out of person interests for power and not anything remotely resembling principles. If he was then he would have a history of being opposed to Liberal party policies/direction, yet there is zero evidence of that. Especially since he ran in a riding that is one the CPC got 18% voter support in, it is hard to see this as anything other than driven by expediency on his side and a willingness to bribe for an additional seat by Harper, one of the main things he felt should have brought the Martin Liberals down last May/June. What amazing hypocrisy.

I expected there to be something like this soon into Harper's time as PM, I never expected though that he would do things this offensive on his very first day as PM. I do not know what to call this aside from hubris and arrogant presumption that he feels he can get away with this kind of reversal from his campaign promises on accountability, transparency, and honest government which was the central theme of his campaign and what he was ultimately elected on. After all, more people voted CPC to remove the Liberals for their corruption and arrogance than did to support CPC policies. So for Harper to do this right on taking power must have more than a few Canadians going WTF and wondering if Harper is going to be as sleazy as the Liberals why then did we kick them out? At least the Liberals were known qualities on economics and social policy, whereas Harper has just demonstrated that the Harper of the election campaign is not the Harper moving into 24 Sussex Drive.

*addition* For those interested in reading some Blogging Tories defending this Emerson Cabinet appointment, try here and here.


Anonymous GoodGrief said...

I share your discomfiture with this whole scenario. Up till now, in spite of my misgivings, I gave Mr Harper the benefit of wait and see. I didn't have to wait very long..

Tue Feb 07, 12:41:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Dave said...

Great post! What galls me is the fact that it all went down the tubes so early. I expected something, but I didn't expect it so quickly.

Tue Feb 07, 02:36:00 AM 2006  
Anonymous CuriosityKilledTheCat said...

Stephen Who?

On his very first day as PM, Stephen Harper showed clear signs of following in the footsteps of the bungling Joe Clark, who not only lost his luggage but succeeded in losing his bearings in Parliament as well. Like Joe, Harper seems to have forgotten that his is a minority government, not a majority one, and seems to have assumed – at great risk to his fledgling government – that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc will not oppose him and force another election for 12 to 18 months.

We shall see if that assumption is valid.

If an election is held soon, the Tories will start off with egg on their faces, due to Holier-than-thou Harper’s baffling judgment on Day One.

Why on earth did Harper harpoon his own left foot?

He did it once, with his turncoat-conversion and the Liberal into the cabinet before anyone can see it sleight of hand.

He did it twice, with his appointment of – among others – Stockwell Day to his cabinet, instead of more women, and more women it important posts. Does the other half of the population – women – not count in Stephen Who’s world?

He did it thrice, with his U-turn on an elected senate. Principles dumped for expediency?

He did it fourthly, with his appointment of a former lobbyist – and then breathtakingly wants to legislate against others being allowed to do the same.

He did it fifthly, with his introduction into Canada of the Karl Rovian doublespeak. Thanks to Stephen Who, Canadians can now also spend delightful hours parsing the speeches of politicians, to decipher just how they are being bamboozled.

What a beginning!

I wonder if he will last as long as Joe Who....

Tue Feb 07, 12:10:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous john said...

"However, it is also clear that Harper bribed Emerson with a Cabinet position".
I assume with your justified attack on Grewal for making such a claim and not having evidence, you have such evidence and are not simply spreading lies like Ottawa did with Graham? Can you share such evidence with me please as I have no tolerance for this kind of behaviour in Parliament and will direct it to the proper authorities for investigation.

Tue Feb 07, 03:08:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...

Let's see John Emerson says he left the Liberal party to become a CPC Cabinet Minister because he felt he could better represent his constituents in a Cabinet than out of one, the fact that he had to cross to the party he most strongly campaigned against for eight weeks only a fortnight earlier notwithstanding. Harper brought him in to Cabinet, indeed appears to have gone to recruit him to his Cabinet. The only reason Emerson switched was to be in Cabinet, he made that clear, unless you are going to try and argue that Emerson would have crossed into the CPC backbenches instead of staying a Liberal backbencher. Therefore this man was "seduced"/"enticed" by the seat in Cabinet as his only reason for crossing, and Harper offered it to him because he recognized that was the only reason for him to cross. Looks, smells, and tastes like a de facto bribe here.

If there was any indication of principle behind Emerson switching, some evidence of clashes with the Liberal party or its policies then it would be arguable he had other reasons for crossing and therefore Harper putting him in Cabinet was recognition of such and the competence he brings with him. That as I said though is clearly nonexistent in this case. Emerson did not want to lose the power of a Cabinet position, his motives be they good bad whatever are irrelevant, the bottom line is he wanted the power and was willing to betray his campaign workers, the party under whose banner he ran, and the constituents that elected him under that banner to get it only two weeks after the election. Harper was willing to offer that power, and it is the stated reason Emerson switched. Now, how exactly does that not look like Harper bribed a Liberal with power to become a Minister in his Cabinet when what all parties involved have said he was asked to be in a Harper Cabinet because of his skills, especially since there was no indications of any conflict with the Liberals and being in Opposition with the Liberals as of election night?

If I could prove this was criminal fraud I would go to the RCMP myself. However, unlike Grewal and Harper I am not an elected member of Parliament, I am a private citizen describing what I am seeing take place in Ottawa, and my opinion is that Emerson was bribed by Harper to cross into his Cabinet, and that the statements each man has given for this cross do nothing to provide an alternate explanation. If you do not understand the difference between a private citizen and a public figure leveling charges you have real problems. Besides, unlike Grewal and the CPC including Harper himself, I am not claiming to have any evidence, let alone conclusive evidence to support my contention. Nor am I using it to try and bring a government down so I can trigger an election which would hopefully put me in power, again unlike Harper and the CPC with Grewal.

I realize that the free speech standards for a private citizen may be difficult for you to grasp as opposed to a public official leveling specific criminal allegations and claiming conclusive evidence, but they do exist. Besides, Harper and Emerson are free to sue me if they feel defamed, that is their right. However I rather suspect I can make a fairly decent case that what I have said is not slander/defamation, unlike say labeling someone a pedophile like some online Conservatives appear to be doing on far far far less compelling/convincing circumstantial evidence.

Again John you demonstrate an appalling lack of understanding of subtlety, complexity, and most importantly context. The context of a private citizen saying a PM bribed someone with a Cabinet position is entirely different than a public person making the same claim. The context of a private citizen and a public official are significantly different, and therefore alter what is legal/acceptable and what is not.

Tue Feb 07, 11:43:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scott in Montreal said...

I agree Scotian. It stinks to high heaven. What a rotten ride we are on. The only bright spot being that now Layton and the NDP will hold the balance of power. Of course that may not mean much; one has to assume that a Liberal party that is in no position to fight an election without a leader will simply choose not to show up for any votes that could topple the government - until they're good and ready, anyway.

Wed Feb 08, 01:05:00 AM 2006  
Anonymous john said...

Sorry Scotian, I actually had respect for you and your stand against Grewal. Although your rhetoric got a little overdramatic, I agreed and thought more should have happened in that case. But with your accusation without fact here, you put yourself in the same class as he is and what's even worse, is that you can't admit when you are wrong. You have descredited yourself with an unfounded accusation. Put whatever spin on it you want, it is what it is. I understand your defensive attitude here but it's okay to be wrong every once and awhile, just ask my wife cause she says it happens all the time.
If you wanted to put forth a position that you beleive but do not have fact to support it, then you should state that because saying that it is clear that Harper bribed him indicates to anyone reading this post that you know something the rest of us don't. Attacking me is also not the answer. You spoke out of context, admit it, make ammends and move on. You just simply can't have it both ways.

Wed Feb 08, 10:22:00 AM 2006  
Anonymous CuriosityKilledTheCat said...

Harper’s One-Man-Band, and Pretzel Tories.

So, a little time has passed, and Harper’s daring moves to impress the electorate with his political acumen have now sunk in a bit. Reaction across the country to his cabinet appointments – and abandonment of principles espoused during the election – have varied from sheer disbelief, to shock, to amusement. Never has a Canadian politician fallen so far so fast. Usually it takes time for power to corrupt, but Mr. Harper is a man in a hurry.

Many Tories have had to swallow their tongues and bend themselves into pretzels defending the indefensible. Some MPs have said they fear going back to their ridings because they will have to explain to their supporters how the Harper crew did a sudden U-turn on the accountability issue, which, after all, was the Tory strong point in the election. Harper ran as Mr. Clean, and painted Martin as Mr. Corruption at every opportunity he had.

Even the rightwing press is stunned and disappointed.

Examples of press reaction:

The Vancouver Sun:

“"I expected some of the superficial criticism I've seen," Mr. Harper told The Vancouver Sun in an interview. "But I think once people sit back and reflect, they'll understand that this is in the best interests of not just British Columbia but frankly of good government." Mr. Harper referred to his statements on Monday, when he said he recruited Mr. Emerson to Cabinet to give Vancouver -- which didn't elect a Tory MP in five city ridings -- a voice in Cabinet. He used the same rationale to explain why he appointed Tory national campaign co-chairman Michael Fortier, a Montreal businessman, to the Senate and as Minister of Public Works. Montreal, like Vancouver, did not elect a government MP. "I think I was clear what I did and why I did it," Mr. Harper said yesterday.

The Calgary Sun – Roy Clancy:

“Stephen Harper must be breathing a sigh of relief today. Just minutes after being sworn in as prime minister, he relieved himself of one of the biggest burdens he had carried into the job. No longer must he live up to the impossible standard of political purity and ethical integrity saddled upon him by a naive electorate. ...But as widespread moans of anger illustrate, many Canadians took Harper seriously when he promised Monday to "begin a new chapter for Canada." No wonder they were disappointed when they learned within moments that this new chapter looks a lot like the old one. ...Harper's pragmatic moves may not have violated the letter of his promises to change the way government is run, but they shattered the spirit. .... Monday's manoeuvres quickly lowered the bar when it comes to public expectations of this new regime.“

The Calgary Sun - Rick Bell:

“See the Tories wriggle. Wriggle, Tories, wriggle. Ah yes, one party's turncoat is another party's principled politician. No anger now. No demands to step down and face the voters now. No nasty name-calling now. No sympathy for the poor electors of the riding of the quisling now. ... The trouble with talking about the moral high ground is you actually have to walk on it or, like the kid standing by the broken window after throwing the snowball, insist without shame you've done nothing wrong. ... So the rationalizations flow, the lame explanations are exhaled into the hot air and only those who have drunk the Conservative Kool-Aid will follow as good old ideological ants.”

So, what lessons can be taken from Harper’s first exercise of Prime Ministerial power? Here are a few for you to ponder:

• Just as it is unfair to accuse every Republican of having the same moral vacuity that President Bush has displayed, so too is it unfair to say that all Conservatives – and all voters who voted for the Tories – lack good moral and political judgment. It is very clear that there are a lot of people who voted Tory because they sincerely believed that it was time for the Liberals to mend their house, and for another party to bring in some anti-corruption measures. These people still have high standards; they are as bewildered by the events of this week as others are.

• Harper obviously believes he is above trifling things like having to take the feelings of others into consideration. This exercise of Prime Ministerial power shows that he will think things through – apparently mostly on his own – and then decide on the best way forward. If he explains his thought process, it is obvious to him that voters will then understand why he is right, and fall into line. There is a word for this: paternalism. Harper shows clear signs of seeing himself as the Big Wise Daddy of Canadian politics. His use of the word “superficial” to describe the reaction of others to his crass abandonment of some of the major planks of his election platform illustrates this very clearly.

• Harper is focused on winning a majority in the next election, to happen within 18 months. Everything he will do or say is geared to that. If lesser mortals within his own party do not understand this, that is their problem. They must suck it up and stay in line. Big Daddy knows best.

• Harper does not believe in a democratic party for the Tory government. It is his way or the highway (witness Stronach). This is perhaps the most worrisome aspect for many Tories: did they realize they were electing a dictator rather than the leader of a parliamentary party fashioned along the lines of a Westminster democracy? How many more decisions will be made by The Leader, and rammed down the throats of the caucus? And how can Canadians expect such decisions to be the best, if they are not tested by vigorous debate within the governing party before being made?

If Harper continues in the same vein for the next 12 months, expect him to join the ranks of the Clarks, Campbells and Martins as a short-lived blip on the Canadian political firmament.

Wed Feb 08, 01:57:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...

Of course you disagree John, that is what you have been doing here since you first came by. Why should that be any surprise? Not to mention that you started your tenure here by attacking me for things I had not said, then taking something another commentator and asking me to speak on her behalf (or holding me accountable for her words, I never was sure what you were arguing there).

It never ceases to amaze me how when elected members make unfounded accusations it is acceptable, yet when I make a solid case that Emerson was bribed with a Cabinet position to change parties two weeks after being elected a Liberal you think I am a hypocrite,. Well then, kindly provide your basis for believing Emerson would have gone to the CPC if he had NOT been provided a Cabinet position why don't you? Nothing Harper or Emerson have said about why this happened provides for any other explanation that Emerson would be in the CPC if he had not been put in Harper's Cabinet. Indeed, Emerson's own explanation makes it clear that it was to stay in a Cabinet that motivated his decision to switch.

It is rather difficult to claim that given all this that Harper did not buy this Liberal with a Cabinet seat which then increased his seat count and balance of power within the CPC Parliament. Harper said to Emerson, hey I like you, I think you are a good man and good Cabinet Minister, so why don't I appoint you to my Cabinet if you will change parties? That is bribing an Opposition MP (who took it, which doesn't speak well to his ethics either) with power to change sides. So sorry John, I am not being a hypocrite, I can support my claim that Harper bribed Emerson from both Emerson and Harper's own explanations. It does speak volumes for your own partisanship though that you cannot follow this rather clear and straightforward logic.

Wed Feb 08, 04:41:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...


*Fair warning*

I do not have any patience with those that spam the same post at many blogs, keep it up and they will start being deleted. Start spamming them into different threads at this blog like you have at others will result in all of your posts being deleted in the future. If you cannot create an individual/unique comment at each blog or thread then you are not welcome in my books. Be warned.

Wed Feb 08, 04:44:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous john said...

I never said it was acceptable, you are making unfounded assumptions there. Your solid case consists of inferences, not fact. I don't have to provide anything regarding why I think he crossed because I did not make the accusation like you did. You cannot spin this onto me.
No you can't support the claim that he was clearly bribed. You may put forth that idea as your own but you can't support it. Period. We are getting off topic here, my point was that you roasted Ottawacore and Grewal for making non-factual claims, the biggest scandal in Canadian politics I think you called it, but when you do it, whether you truely believe it true or not is irrelevant, it is okay. So yes, that is hypocritical.
Scotian, the point I was trying to make was that I think people like yourself are just as dangerous as people like Ottawacore. You are more similar than you are different. You both refuse to look at a situation from any other viewpoint than your own and you both will try to score cheap points no matter what the cost to anyone in the way.
Seperate fact from opinion and it will go a long way to restoring you name.

Wed Feb 08, 08:50:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...


Either you can provide evidence that Emerson would have crossed the floor without a Cabinet seat, evidence that Emerson was having serious conflicts with the direction of Liberal policy, or accept that the only reason that can possibly exist for what happened is Emerson did not want to surrender the power of Cabinet and when Harper came to him two days after the election with a Cabinet offer Emerson jumped at it. In other words Harper bought a Liberal seat with the inducement of a Cabinet seat that otherwise without the Cabinet seat would not have happened.

Remember, by Emerson's own words he did this cross because of his belief he could do more for his riding as a Cabinet Minister. That Harper said he wanted Emerson in his Cabinet. There is zero evidence for any other explanation than Harper bought Emerson with a Cabinet seat and Emerson was willing to be bought with a Cabinet seat to do something he otherwise would not have done.

There is a serious difference between this and the Grewal affair, and your attempts to equate my responses in each shows that you do not grasp what should be fairly evidence, unless one is being blinded by partisanship. For one thing I am a private citizen voicing an opinion whereas the allegations and evidence provided and altered came from public figures claiming they could prove a criminal conspiracy and bribery. If you cannot understand that difference then you are even denser than you appear, especially since I have never claimed to have the evidence to support it outside of what already is in the public domain from Emerson and Harper themselves.

For one thing the Grewal fraud started with a CPC MP recording things, the CPC and Harper deciding to authenticate/translate, and transcribe these recordings while standing behind a specific criminal allegation that supposedly had conclusive proof to support it (something I am not claiming I have and never did claim in the case of Emerson) presented as authentic, complete and unedited recordings which supported the criminal allegation made, only to have that recording turn out to be heavily edited for content and that unedited conclusively disproved the specific criminal allegation.

Your inability to grasp the serious differences here is stunning. I am not saying I can prove that Harper bought Emerson, I am saying there is no other explanation available, including from what Harper and Emerson themselves said about it. I am saying that unless someone can provide evidence to support any other explanation it is the one I believe to be true, since Occam's razor tells me that the simplest explanation is generally the correct one, and the simplest explanation given all the available evidence/information is that Harper offered a Cabinet seat to Emerson to cross the floor and Emerson took it. That there is zero evidence of any conflicts between Emerson and the Liberals prior to this election result which would indicate he would leave the Liberals to sit as a CPC backbencher. No, his sole reason provided is because he wants to stay in Cabinet, and that Harper went to him and offered it and he took it. To describe that as anything other than Harper bought Emerson is the stretch.

You seem to want to try and discredit me as dangerous, well I am dangerous to the Conservative Party and especially the social conservatives and America lovers/emulators in that party. I don't level accusations lightly, and when I do I can provide the evidence to support why I am saying so, as I have done in both the Grewal fraud and the Emerson buyout by Harper. Either challenge me on the facts and prove me wrong or not to put too fine a point on it shut up on this point, move on, or leave. This is the last time I am addressing you on this specific point.

Incidentally, I find your comparison of me to the person claiming Graham is a pedophile to be intentionally offensive as well as complete nonsense. He has not provided anything solid/substantial to support his claim, whereas I have provided evidence from all the primary parties themselves in their own words. His evidence is sheer speculation without foundation and about something from a decade or two ago, whereas mine is from the main actors themselves in the public domain this week. So you can take that equivalence and shove it. Make it again and you will never get another response from me.

Thu Feb 09, 07:28:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous john said...

You don't take criticism well do you Scotian? I will let this go because you fail to see the error in your logic. I could try again to show you but your so adament that you just simply cannot be wrong about anything so what's the point in trying. We will drop this and move to discuss something else.

Thu Feb 09, 08:22:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...


No I do not take dishonest criticism well, there is a difference. I am well aware of my own limitations, my own ability to be wrong and to make mistakes, something I have been many times and acknowledged when provided the proof to back it up with in blogging for over two years as a commentator on blogs and well over a decade and a half prior in other electronic media. You do not understand something, while I may only have had a blog for the last few months with not all that much on it, I have been an online commentator from back in the days when the only way to be so was on local bbses, long before the web let alone the blogs. I have dealt with all the different ways to spin someone's comments and views into something totally different from what the author said, I have been on the receiving end of it far more times than I can possibly remember, and I have developed a limited degree of patience for it.

This is my blog where I am the moderator, so excuse me if I feel that I can chose to be a bit more direct in my lack of patience for such than I might be at someone else's blog. You want to disagree with me, fine. You want to take apart something I have said because you think the underlying premise is wrong, fine. What you do not get to do though is make assumptions, read more into things then I said, and then use them to formulate why you think I am wrong about something, at least you don't get to do it without my calling you for it.

I have not called you names, characterized you as some kind of spokesman for your political movement, I have not used profanities, nor have I told you that you are not welcome to continue leaving comments. I have responded to your comments for the most part, I might have missed one or two at the most since you started, and I have refrained from dismissing you out of hand despite your picking arguments with things I have not said or making false equivalencies without substantiating why they are accurate. I know for a fact I have shown far more restraint and patience with you than I would receive on almost any (there are thankfully the few exceptions) Conservative blog were I to make the same arguments about their work as you have done mine.

So even in your comment that I do not take criticism well you have not backed up your assertion, you have simply declared it as if it were factual because you said it. I do not have a problem with criticism and debating, all I ask of it is that it be honest. Instead though too often I get what you have been giving, and that is a shame.

Case in point: " "However, it is also clear that Harper bribed Emerson with a Cabinet position". I assume with your justified attack on Grewal for making such a claim and not having evidence, you have such evidence and are not simply spreading lies like Ottawa did with Graham?" I never claimed to have evidence other than Harper and Emerson's own words on the record unlike Grewal who claimed to have secret recordings of private discussions where these acts were being contemplated. Big difference, yet you completely ignore it. Not to mention the use of such charge to try and defeat a minority government in a Confidence vote, or have you forgotten the timing on this issue and how the CPC was using it as a part of its argument why the government should be defeated last May? Indeed it was claiming it was the rpoof of what they had been saying all along about the Liberals?

Then you compare this to what OttawaCore is doing with Graham. Again, slight problem, in that I have laid out my sources, they are fresh, they are all in the public record and unchallenged, and they are consistent with all the facts with no evidence to counter them. Even in Harper’s defence about how good a Minister he is and that is why the offer was made is predicated on the assumption that Emerson would not cross the floor unless a Cabinet seat was a part of the deal. Therefore it may be harsh, but it is a fair description that Harper bought this man with a Cabinet seat. The same cannot be said for what OttawaCore has been providing.

This is what I am talking about when I say you are being dishonest in your arguments, and the fact you cannot see this even when it is spelled out for you is not helping your case either. Now you are getting in a huff because I will not let you get away with such sloppy arguments and claiming I am the one not taking criticism well. If anything it seems more like the other way around, seeing as I am not stopping you in the slightest from continuing to do so, just saying that what you have provided so far is not intellectually honest and explaining why it isn’t, despite you having shown the ability to be so if you so chose. If you were just another critic throwing one liners and profanities I would have stopped bothering with you from one or two rebuttals onwards.

I am comfortable leaving my words and my responses to speak for themselves to anyone reading this afterwards, so obviously I believe I have made my case. You clearly think you have made yours despite it also being clear that you have not, in no small part because of your sloppy assumptions/premises. Not to mention your oversimplification of things so as to create a false equivalency for you to chastise me for being inconsistent about, which was your last shot at me. Pity. I had some hopes for you at the beginning.

Thu Feb 09, 09:09:00 PM 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home