What's good for the goose is NOT good for the Gander
Well, Stronach did it and I hated it. Rightfully so. Emerson does it and I more than hate it. To quote a wise man named Paul Perry: "Didn't we just vote against this crap?" Yes, Paul, we did. Most Libs had better say nothing, but all others better be ticked at a fellow crossing the floor and receiving a Cabinet Post the same day.
To fill you in: David Emerson was a Lib MP from Vancouver. This morning he became a Tory MP and is now minister of Int'l Trade and something about the Olympics. I understand it. But it isn't right.
To fill you in: David Emerson was a Lib MP from Vancouver. This morning he became a Tory MP and is now minister of Int'l Trade and something about the Olympics. I understand it. But it isn't right.
posted by Aaron Perry at
11:44 AM
7 Comments:
we are miles ahead by having a wooden bird that drinks water ala The Simpsons.
it's the logic of addition by subtraction: subtract thieves and you actually have a gain. my concern, to stick with the original post, is the apparent cavalier attitude of hte Tories. we can only gripe about the Libs for so long.
My friends,
I know it's not like me to be a fly in the ointment, but, consider. . . .
(1) Stronach was unqualified for any cabinet position. Emerson is. He has business experience in the portfolio to which he has been appointed; he has a Ph.D. in economics. B'linduh graduated highschool and inherited Daddy's company.
(2) Stronach's cross was induced to change the dynamic of parliament (i.e., to ensure the Li(e)berals remained in power). Emerson brings no such dynamic. For each piece of legislation, the PM still has to convince all the NDP or some combination of Bloc, NDP and Liberals to vote with the gov't.
It is possible, I think, to rail against the (double) crossing of B'linDUH (which I have done) while accepting the notion of crossing the floor in principle (which I do) and seeing the wisdom in this particular instance (which I do).
Now the question is, what does Norman Geisler think?
Some Guy
pointless comment at the end.
the blatant opportunism of Emerson is dispicable in any way. two weeks ago he campaigned as a Liberal under the leadership of Paul Martin. is he qualified? absolutely. (this is part of why i understand it.) if he were a Tory all along he would be a Cabmin. the problem is that he was not a Tory all along.
stronach's cross did keep the Libs in power for some time, but the dynamic is not that different. both have minority gov'ts. besides, the issue is not crossing the floor. the issue is crossing the floor and receiving high profile posts the day you do.
the fact that the Tories were able to entice a qualified person while the Libs could only entice an unqualified person does not prove valour or honour; it proves shrewdness.
AP
(1) I think my "dynamic of parliament" phrase was misunderstood. Perhaps I should have said "balance of power"?
The BS cross did shift the balance of power signficantly. It actually changed the outcome of a confidence vote in the house.The Emerson one doesn't and in all likelihood, won't.
The truly tragic thing was that the only person who didn't know that the BS cross was only about shifting the balance of power was BS herself. Remember the doe in the headlight eyes when press gallery erupted in laughter at PMPM's suggestion that this had nothing to do with politics? He lied. She believed him. Nobody else did. Truly sad.
(2) You imply that shrewdness is a bad thing. Why? Winston Churchill, after all, crossed the floor twice and still became the greatest (and shrewdest) leader of the 20th century.
(3) Crossing the floor is a political reality in a parliamentary system which uses the whip. It has happened in the past. It will happen in the future. The question is, simply, does it happen for the crassest of reasons or not? In the Emerson case, I think the answer is "not."
(4) I live for pointless comments and will continue to make them as long as God gives me breath. That's what I say. En francais, "C'est ca que je dit."
if you want to live in pointless comments, then take no offense when circles of thought aren't completed and you complete them ;)
re: 1: i did misunderstand. that balance of power was short-lived--and says nothing to this issue, except by way of comparison. this issue can be interpreted on its own, however. (i.e., had Stronach not done waht she had done, i'd still be mad.)
re: 2: shrewdness is a bad thing when it is the means to opportunistic ends. the fact is, the Tories enticed a well-qualified person to cross the floor shrewdly. if you interpret emerson's cross because he wants to serve the people of Canada by doing a bang-up job at the olympics in 2010, then i can go along with the...uh...soft aroma around the issue. if, however, emerson comes over b/c it's more fun to be important and to have a portfolio then it reeks. if it's somewhere in the middle, which is most likely the case, then it's wrong if only for the fact that the Canadian population is bored and jaded with politicians. this doesn't help. actually, it hurts.
at the very least, emerson should re-run in a bye-election and then receive a Cabinet post. it's a matter of integrity.
who telephoned who first, d'you think?
I do like Paul's theory best! I think it is great! Anytime the Liberals can take one up the back passage is a time of joy! And not just because they seem to like it...but because the Tories came out stronger. I like it....I do however get mad at those who voted Liberal and are shocked at the Dingwall pay off! Please, the Liberals raped us for 12 years and their supporters are worried about another few 100 thousand....please, these idiots are shameless. I'm so glad that the Conservatives are in and I welcome anybody who crosses the floor to give us even more power. To all the other looser parties out there, and to their supporters (mainly Aj)...may all you do drip with disease...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home