Let's keep the revisionism in check, because it's embarrassing. All these Conservative apologists and commentators were in UNIVERSAL agreement, there was NO PRICE to be paid, Harper operated with impunity. Canadians didn't care about "process", it was actually a clever move to outflank the opposition, more Harper brilliance. The arrogant assumptions were on display, and not ONE of these people ever hinted at any short term political cost, especially the magnitude we've seen.
By no means am I suggesting another Conservative rebound in the polls is out of the question, there are levers available in the next few months which could help the cause. However, to actually posit that all this blow back was INCORPORATED into Conservative decisions, is sad spin (It's akin to Liberals arguing that Ignatieff wanted to force an election and plummet in the polls, so he could position himself as the "comeback kid" a few months later). Just take your lumps, admit you completely miscalculated, your arrogance got the better of you and move on. None of you saw this coming, you were actually playing checkers and you've negated all of your September advantage, completely and utterly.
As an aside, can someone ask Tom Flanagan why he didn't point out any potential hazards when spoke on CBC, just prior to the prorogue? I seem to recall a "win/win" proposition, even recommending the government go ahead because nobody would notice, NO RISK. No mention of long games, no talk of the grand strategy, just what a PLUS it would be for Conservative fortunes to prorogue, especially over the holidays. Listening to the pompous commentary now, you'd swear Flanagan is aghast at Harper's horrible decision. You pushed the idea, I'm sure some in the PMO were influenced by the glowing scenario you proposed Thomas. Pull out the tapes CBC, and remind us all of Flanagan's confident dismissals. To come full circle, Flanagan appeared with the sorry excuse for a "pundit" I linked to, who's penned his latest turd in today's National Poop.
51 comments:
I believe Harper's plan was to throw us into an election in March. It probably was a good idea - LPC tanking in the polls, CPC riding high, and a 3 month absence from Parliament where Harper's numbers always go down.
I think he may have changed his mind about the election now. :)
As an aside, my friend went to see Ignatieff in Calgary yesterday. She said there were a lot of conservative plants in the audience but that Ignatieff handled them all well. She was very impressed with him.
I almost lost my breakfast reading Ivison.
The funniest part is this "banking" characterization. Yes, because when you're way up in the polls, your opponents demoralized, there is nothing more shrewd that rolling the dice and gambling. How that guy has a gig escapes me, as does the CBC's decision to put the PMO stooge on the air, as though relevant. Just call Dmitri and dispense with the veil.
OK can John Ivison kiss Harper's ass any harder? This was all part of some grand strategy ...bullshit! Even playing chess you can become too aggressive and next thing you know you've lost a rook.
That's the only thing in question now. Was Harper's latest blunder merely a rook, or did he just foolishly loose his queen and is now facing 2-3 moves from checkmate? You're move Iggy.
Ivison is a long time Conservative propagandist, as opposed to "Conservative editorialist."
I usually say "ignore him," but thee are likely the new talking point marching orders.
Steve is right. Always point to the contradictions when you see them.
Seems like after plugging teh "master strategist" meme for so long, Ivison just can't bring himself to accept the fact that Harper blundered and blundered big time.
There are none so blind as he who will not see.
Watch for the borg to adopt his lines.
You know what made me sick? I watched Evan Solomon (who's way over his head) discussing with a female strategist from Earnscliffe and Ivison - how this crisis Haiti will help Harper.
Ivison sat there as cold as ice, not uttering one word of concerned over Haiti, but yapping about how this crisis is going to help Harper.
I wanted to punch the TV screen.
What's with Solomon always having this jerk Ivison on anyway?
Unlike a number of other occasions where hubris hurt Harper, there was no anonymous stooge he could blame this on... otherwise the so-called leader and his so-called future ghost writer Idiotson would have pitched them over long ago.
Certainly, the column (which i refuse to read but i can go on past putrid examples and your responses) could turn out to be prophetic; we know how many lives a black cat has.
Ivison sat there as cold as ice, not uttering one word of concerned over Haiti, but yapping about how this crisis is going to help Harper.
Another reason that the National Post can't die fast enough in my opinion. Ivison need not worry, he'll get a job within the PMO, or maybe follow Duffy and snag a senate appointment.
So when Canadians in Lebanon wanted to get out of harms way the NP & other knuckle draggers echoed the Reformist line about so called Canadians of Convenience. With the horror that has befallen Haiti, I'm surprised this same angle has not been floated by at least the Sun folks on this tragedy... BTW, where is the photo op with the present PM & Pat Robertson?
Steve,
"Dear leader..."
"...None of you saw this coming, you were actually playing checkers and you've negated all of your September advantage, completely and utterly..."
"...Flanagan appeared with the sorry excuse for a "pundit" I linked to, who's penned his latest turd in today's National Poop..."
__________________________
I see you are having a good time with this. Ease up on the "crap" aka "poop".
Let's look at this without the BS for a second shall we?
Can we agree that the act of proporation wasn't the problem just the way it was enacted? No?
The way it was enacted (mistake!) gave your pet guard dogs (aka the Liberal media) a chance to tee off. At least until something real showed up (Haiti). You must be so jealous right now. If so, I suggest you give your head a shake.
The reason I am saying that the process Harper used was messed (and arrogant) because if the PM had made a speech talking about the need to democratically re-work the Senate and then formally and stiffly walked over to the GG, I don't think the same entry exists for the attack dogs.
The Afghan detainee issue is a joke and always was a joke. McCallum is now publicly calling Canadian troops war criminals and probably acknowledging himself in cover-up of war crimes in his role as Minister of National Defense where he chose to give detainees to the Afghans and not the American's and also heard the same news the CPC Ministers heard except years earlier.
I knmow you are a poll guru, but I would also like to differ with your views on "...negated all of your September advantage, completely and utterly...".
Not yet...at the end of August, the LPC and the CPC were tied in the polls. Right now the CPC still has a 3-5% advantage. Small consolation, but some.
pardon the typo's.
I'm not sure "proporation" is a word, pheraps I meant "prorogation"
Gayle,
You suggested that the CPC may have been looking for a defeated Throne Speech to take advantage of their popularity. Well once again we start a new year with an upside down situation.
Every year since Chretien left politics has seen wild fluctuations in political fortunes. It looks like 2010 is the same.
I have a question. When will the CPC friendly bloggers quit using the term "Iffy"?
The man's name is Michael Ignatieff. "Iggy" is even a stretch as far as I'm concerned.
Tomm
Is it really that BAD, you have to play the liberal media card? Truth of the matter, it was that medium that dismissed, only grassroots reaction that kept it in the news.
You read like a rambling partisan, desperate to negate.
Here's a question- if the detainee question is such a joke, why all the roadblocks? As I've said from the beginning, the reaction to requests, stonewalling Commissions, inquiry, is the reason this all matters. Your cognitive abilities are "crap".
"...your pet guard dogs (aka the Liberal media)..."
Please. It is time for the CPC partisans to get off this one and start acknowledging that when Harper gets negative press, it is because he does something that merits negative press. Why you people refuse to hold him accountable is beyond me. It kind of borders on cultish fanaticism.
Anyway, Harper himself said the Senate had very little to do with why he prorogued, so why would explaining that help? I think it would not help to explain bills were being held up in the senate because bills were NOT being held up in the Senate. I don't think Harper wants any lights to shine on that particular lie.
Steve,
You said:
"Is it really that BAD, you have to play the liberal media card?"
"Bad" ...perhaps, but the media card, absolutely. They see blood and want to keep sawing away at the wound.
You asked:
"...if the detainee question is such a joke, why all the roadblocks?"
I really don't know. The whole thing is absolutely blank. It is something the present government fixed, any blood is equally on the Liberal's; and the whole thing is third hand. I have no idea why Harper would want to shut this down. Maybe he thought he could deflect McKay's "scinilla" comment, or perhaps O'Connor signed some damning memo. I just don't know.
With regards to my cognitive abilities being "crap". What the hell does that mean?
Who's being partisan now?
"They see blood and want to keep sawing away at the wound."
You mean like when there were all kinds of "anonymous senior liberals" going on about dissention within the ranks?
It is not biased to cover stories Tomm. Get over yourself.
"...any blood is equally on the Liberal's"
Nope.
Gayle,
True enough about hindsight. It is too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
The media business is a place where we clearly do not agree. The "Fifth Estate" is aptly named. Harper's only hope, was to miraculously gain power and then freeze out the Heather Mallick's, Stephen Staples, and Maude Barlow's. The world view of the media is not conducive to a better Canada or a secure planet. The T-Star and most at CBC (excepting the At Issue folks), would like nothing better then to lead each day with bleeding CPC stories.
Your view that the Senate was not holding up governemnt bills is the real revisionism. Please don't let stuff like that leave your keyboard without a second look. Kind of like my typo's I guess.
The Senate has spent four years successfully blocking, delaying, and adding un-friendly revisions to government bills.
Gayle,
With respect to the Afghan detainee issue please answer these questions:
-Why did McCallum and then Graham as Minister's refuse to transfer detainee's to the American's instead of the Afghan's?
-What did McCallum and Graham know about the transfers and when did they know it?
-How can these guys be complicit in the attacks on the Canadian forces post-2006 without choking in shame, or on their own hypocrisy?
-Why does McCallum think Canadian officials in Afghanistan are complicit in war crimes? And when did this start?
-Does McCallum think that himself or Bill Graham are as complicit as O'Connor or McKay, and if not, why?
If trhew Committee was truly looking at what they pretend to be looking at, it seems that these questions and these witnesses are as relevant.
Good to see Tomm has his straw grasping gloves on today.
Gene,
Just don't like the turds being dropped from high onto our Right Honourable Prime Minister.
You know how it is.
So what you're saying Tomm is you don't mind it if the PM dishes it out but you just can't stand it when he gets it back.
Pretty much guaranteed you wouldn't take that stance if the PM wasnt a Conservative.
Hypocrisy thy name is Tomm.
"The Senate has spent four years successfully blocking, delaying, and adding un-friendly revisions to government bills."
Please list all the bills the Senate has delayed.
Please list all the bills the Senate has blocked.
Please provide the average amount of time it has taken a bill to get through the Senate in the past 20 years.
Please provide the average number of bills the Senate has amended in the past 20 years (you do know that is their role, right?).
When you do your research come back to me and try to justify your point.
The LPC transferred prisoners to the US forces. They only decided to transfer them to Afghan authorities just before they were defeated in 2006. They knew about the allegations of torture, and therefore negotiated an agreement that put safeguards in place to protect the detainees from torture. Since they lost government shortly after, they were not in power when it was learned those safeguards were not adequate. The party that was in power ignored those allegations, and then came to the House of Commons and lied about them, and continue to do so.
The LPC is on record asking for an inquiry that goes back to the start of the mission. Clearly they feel their actions should be subject to the same scrutiny as the CPC, and yet Harper refuses to hold an inquiry.
I do not even have to ask what Harper is running away from. I think it is obvious.
Tomm
Your opinion the media is biased against the CPC is about as informed as your opinions about Afghanistan and the Senate. You are only whining about this right now because the CPC are starting to get bad press. That is what happens when you do stupid things.
I do not buy into paranoid conspiracy theories. If you want to go the way of the tinfoil hat brigade good luck to you.
Gene,
My take is that the Right Honorable is being attacked for strictly partisan purposes. I don't like that. How he takes it is up to him.
You are exactly correct that I would not have the same position if a Liberal PM was being attacked strictly for partisan purposes. I would likely be one of the attackers. I cannot stomach the Liberal Party of Canada. Although I don't mind some of the people that are in the party.
Gayle,
Thanks for the Afghanistan/Liberal history lesson. I will consider that and trade my wiffle bat for a feather.
With respect to the Senate, I obviously am not going to engage you in trading statistics. Firstly, I am not going to spend the time independently researching this issue. Secondly, I think it is a stupid idea. We can always trade statistical barbs. Thirdly, this is only a smoke screen and you know it. Don't be afraid to speak truth to power. (I thought you'd like that)
Shorter Tomm
Despite the fact I am accusing the Senate of holding up bills, I have no evidence they are doing that, and cannot name a single bill that has been before the Senate any longer than bills are normally before the Senate.
Here are your facts Tomm (because I have already done this). The Senate routinely amends bills that come before it. They did the same to Chretien (they even refused to pass two of Chretien's bills, as opposed to refusing to pass only one of Mulroney's bills) despite the fact they had a liberal majority in the Senate.
If a bill is amended by the Senate, it goes back to the House where it either passes with the amendments, or is amended in the House to take the Senate amendments out. In the latter case, it goes back before the Senate who can accept or reject it again.
Here is the key point - Harper's bill that was amended by the Senate would have gone back to the House where they could have rejected the Senate amendments. By the time it got back to the Senate, Harper would have had his majority and it probably would have passed without any more amendments. By proroguing Parliament, Harper ensured it died on the table.
THAT is why proroguing to stack the Senate is a total lie, and is also probably why Harper says he did not prorogue to stack the Senate.
In any event, there is one Harper bill that is stuck in the senate - the term limits bill. Personally I think Harper does not want it to pass, but in any event he could get that bill through relatively easily too. The Senate has asked him to refer the bill to the SCC (since it will go there eventually anyway if it is passed because several provinces have stated their intention to challenge it). All Harper has to do is refer it to the SCC, get a ruling, and if it is favourable it will pass the Senate.
The facts Tomm. They always get you in the end.
TOMM you said
The Afghan detainee issue is a joke and always was a joke. McCallum is now publicly calling Canadian troops war criminals.
Prove to use that is what he actually said and not a stupid misquote from the PMO and the partisan media. He said that the Reform Cons by not calling an inquiry and the blacked out pages were a possible government guilty of war crimes. There is nowhere that he blamed the Canadians soldiers of that statement and it is plain to see for all who take the Pm's word at face value is drooling over another lie. The orders to continue handing over the prisoners came from the Commander and chief to the generals and we all know who that person was. You ask for facts and never supply your own. Another sheep parrot repeating the old part line and probably sitting in their war room instructed to keep spreading rumors. Sorry Tomm, there are a lot of people ready to rebel against your control freak sissy a**ed coward.
Good Bye Tomm and from now on, I consider you just another Con troll and will be ignoring you pronto. I will not play your game .
Hi Steve, look at this site for the muliple gaffs of heir Harper. Lots of web sites. All documented and makes for a good read. Trolls can spend hours there trying to make contradictions. Blog of driving drivingtheporcelainbus.
Makes for a good read.
http://drivingtheporcelainbus.blogspot.com/2010/01/harper-attack-on-canadian-democracy.html
Gosh Gayle,
You are just such a trooper.
I actually did something I said I was not going to do and looked for records of Senate actions over the last four years. I found a lot of rhetoric but not a lot of evidence.
There were clear delays in the Senate Reform Bill in spring 2006, the crime bills in 2007, 2008, and 2009. But I cannot find direct links to how much time it took, or whether there were delays beyond the reported rhetoric.
The best was the pride the Liberal Senators showed in passing C-288, Pablo's Kyoto Implementation Act. An Act that all Liberal's lined up to berate the PM over. That reminded me of the grand standing and bewildering ignorance that was coming from the Liberal Party of Canada during those heady days. Thank God the closest they got to power was jamming a ridiculous and unenforceable bill through the Senate.
But other than a nice trip dopwn memory lane, I came back empty.
Marie,
You asked that I avoid commenting on your notes and I have. But, you can't seem to follow your own advice.
With respect to McCallum publicly stating that Canadian forces committed war crimes. It was an interview he did with CBC. In fact he said it twice. I guess it was to make sure we didn't miss it.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/the-wc-puddledid-mccallum-step-in-it.html
McCallum: "I think the bigger weight is bread-and-butter issues, jobs and getting your children to school and all of those things. But I also think Canadians do care about democracy and about the high-handed, undemocratic attitude and actions of this government, and I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr. Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime. And the fact that they're covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues."
Meharchand: "You know, we could digress here and talk about who's handing over, and is it the Canadian soldiers who you're ccusing of war crimes, is it the government, I don't want to go there in this interview."
McCallum: "It's the government."
Okay Tomm, listen to the video again and read the whole transcript. I have done both several times.
Read this again which is also on the video at the link you posted.
But I also think Canadians do care about democracy and about the high-handed, undemocratic attitude and actions of this government, and I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr. Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime. And the fact that they're covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues."
How about this: and is it the Canadian soldiers who you're accusing of war crimes, is it the government, I don't want to go there in this interview."
McCallum: "It's the government."
there is a very strong paper trail and audio to confirm his statement. Spin all you want but that's a fact and lieing isn't going to change what he did say. Sorry troll Spin spin and more spin.Getting dizzy yet?
"But other than a nice trip dopwn memory lane, I came back empty."
Why don't you try looking at the Senate before the CPC became the governing party, and then do a comparison.
You might learn something.
"With respect to McCallum publicly stating that Canadian forces committed war crimes."
I am at a loss to understand why you keep coming here with the CPC talking points when you have obviously done no independent analysis of said talking points.
You know why so many people here write you off as a CPC shill? Because that is what you are.
Try doing your own thinking and get back to us.
Tomm said, "I cannot stomach the Liberal Party of Canada."
This pretty much says it all when attempting to digest any or all of what Tomm has to say on just about anything regarding our present governing situation. In terms of our modern day political discourse, it is a position that is as old as the Alberta hills.
so you're and admitted hypocrite then Tomm.
Credibility issues there Tomm?
Omar,
We are really at the same place here aren't we?
I can't stomach the LPC and you can't stomach the CPC.
Given these blogs are 100% politics, 100% of the time, it colours how we interact.
Don't be mistaken in your view that this somehow makes you a more honest person. It just makes you part of a group here at Steve's that can feel the warmth of community support in your interactions. I, obviously, am not getting a lot of that.
Ain't that right Gene?
Marie,
How are some unconnected politician's in Ottawa guilty of war crimes when the soldiers, and their commanders on site with the information on detainee transfers somehow disconnected?
I adamently disagree with McCallum about Canadian War Crimes, but since he has these views, how does he rationalize them?
The man should apologize and then retire. He has become so "structurally" partisan that he can no longer function in whatever capacity his constituents expect of him.
Gayle,
I was responding to a direct question asked by Marie.
Tomm - I was referring to you parroting CPC talking points.
McCallum never accused the troops of war crimes.
The only people accusing our troops of war crimes are conservatives.
Gayle,
Please translate what MCallum said into a recognizable language then.
"... the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime."
How can the government be guilty of a war crime but no one with any knowledge is guilty of a war crime?
...Or is the war crime because his party isn't in power?
If I am "parroting" talking points I am coming by it honestly since I have no connection, read no inside spam, and am not even a CPC party member.
Tomm - he made it absolutely clear he was talking about the government.
No one beside the conservatives are saying the troops are guilty of anything. The opposition is saying the government, which, as you know, controls the troops, may be guilty of turning a blind eye to torture. The opposition is not blaming the troops for this - only the government and their supporters are doing that.
"If I am "parroting" talking points I am coming by it honestly since I have no connection, read no inside spam, and am not even a CPC party member."
That may be true, but you are marinated in the CPC Kool Aid so bad you refuse to be objective. Or realistic.
Typically Conbot though Tomm; hypocritic or disingenuous but whatever gets your talking points across no matter how unbelievable.
Keep changing that subject Tomm. Im sure everyone in liblog world is about to drop their belief system and adopt yours...
Gene,
You said:
"...Im sure everyone in liblog world is about to drop their belief system and adopt yours..."
That would be great. Let's start by your disassociating yourself with a political party that has trampled on the nation's hinterland for probably 50 years and created divisions that have darn near destroyed this country; to feed itself back to its power base in Upper and Lower Canada.
Then we can get started in exploring what we actually want from a government, you know, at the grassroot level.
Tomm - more talking points?
You do know you have just described the way the CPC have conducted themselves, right?
Seriously Tomm, how much of that western alienation is real versus imagined? Most of it boils down to a never-ending anger that the west doesn’t get their way because some of their views are unpopular in the rest of Canada and the rest of Canada generally out-votes them. It sucks when the other 49% have to live with what the other 51% choose doesn’t it? Welcome to democracy.
Back to western alienation, at this point it’s become an irrational hatred for anything to do with Ontario that’s been passed down from generation to generation. I can tell you that here in Upper Canada, there is nothing approaching the animosity Alberta holds for Ontario, though that might be changing. You see us "alienated" Easterners have been watching the sale of oil and natural gas to the U.S. drive up the Canadian dollar - might as well call it the "petrodollar" - and manufactured products here becoming uncompetitive as a result. Now we’re a have-not province as a result of the petrodollar for the first time in our nation’s history.
But even though you’ve got the world by the ass, you whine, about things past, present, and future, and with undertones of the francophobe. Trudeau still rankles and drives a hatred, decades later. And then there's the nasty eastern banker, and railway and all the rest out of a century and a half of western alienation. Me thinks you protest too much. And far, far too long.
For that matter have you noticed Harper doing back-flips for Ontario and Quebec votes since 2006? Is he on your hate list now too?
I'm west of you Tomm and I don't share your views.
I just think you're far happier to subscribe to the angriness and a frankly distorted view of Harper. So talking points yes!
T of KW, Tomm has an interesting lust for Harper.
Post a Comment