It's been a pretty confounding week, with all the opposition parties giving mixed signals on the Afghan detainee file. The apparent stonewall seemed to be working, as pundits and politicians started to train their gaze elsewhere, nothing to see here, Harper had muted the discussion. From a grassroots perspective, much angst, because people rightly see this issue as fundamental, striking at the heart of our democratic tenets. And, then today, all hell breaks loose as the opposition rises en masse, effectively offering a flurry of repudiation, showing TEETH and resolve.
I don't know if today's blitzkrieg was co-ordinated or not, but all three parties rose in unison and demanded accountability, defended their rights as our representatives and effective kicked Iacobucci to the CURB. I'm sure there will be many more twists in the road, nothing is guaranteed, but for today at least my waning faith has been restored.
Harper the bully, just got a wedgie.
24 comments:
Woo Hoo!!! If it makes me a geek I don't care, I'm so excited about this!
Harper the bully, just got a wedgie.
Oh, if only it goes atomic :)
You may wish to consider changing title to "D-Day", given who the good guy democrats were/are, and the bad guy autocrats were/are. "Blitzkrieg" is associated with the bad guys, in my mind.
PS. Good work, and feel free to delete this comment.
What a refreshing change. Harper has always acted like a schoolyard bully. Finally the kids have come together to stand up to him. Wonderful.
The Speaker rose this morning and explained that he ssked Lee to refrain from bringing forward his motion until he knew what the other parties were going to do.
I do wonder how much time Milliken will give the govt to come back with a formal reply?
As a side note, Harper and Strahl (sp) both mentioned "eliminating the public subsidy for political parties" in QP today.
Your post seems to imply something happened. Colour me ignorant, but what was that exactly? More questions? Did the opposition DO anything today? Seriously, I'm confused.
You're confused, because you're a Con apologist. Get a clue.
As a side note, Harper and Strahl (sp) both mentioned "eliminating the public subsidy for political parties" in QP today.
It was going to come up formally in the next election anyhow. It's bluffing and it just shows they're scared. As I wrote before, all Harper has to fight with is fear. If Harper wants to dissolve parliament and run on that in an election as his answer to government transparency, parliamentary supremacy and compliance with international law ...good luck!
There is no way Harper re-introduces that, it's all bluster. Pierre couldn't make sense of the threat yesterday, it's just desperation.
Something just occurred to me hearing about Harper's threats on eliminating party subsidies. I'm going to make another prediction here folks. I really think the Reformatories got blind-sided today. Being they've been caught by surprise, watch for them to say really dumb things, much like their wild statements when the public didn't buy their original BS about prorogation. They are very bad at ab libing. They can very well bury themselves even deeper over the next few days. Go make some popcorn, curl up by the TV and wait for the goodness to spew forth from their mouths.
You may wish to consider changing title to "D-Day"
When they all back down in the face of a potential election over the matter you can rename the post "Dunkirk" :)
One trick pony. Snore.
Neat headline at the G and M:
"Privilege debate tests Conservative stonewalling on detainees "
I love the assumption of stonewalling.
Oh come on. It was a joke. At least it was lighter fare then "Blitzkrieg" being offensive. Besides, I believe there are valid reasons to be sceptical in regards to the goings on the Hill of late. I'm a cynic. Sue me.
Pick your spots. And show the capacity to give some credit when due. Anyways...
Hey, spine at last!
If we're suggesting alternative titles how 'bout:
"Rock the Casbah"
And now we shall see whether Milliken has the gumption to stand up for democracy or not, email him here pkrOff@parl.gc.ca.
Steve, on an unrelated topic; had you seen this?:
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/news/2010/release/index.php?WEBYEP_DI=18
Like we didn't know this already. These folks are just dishonest, full stop.
I did see that, and then after I saw Prentice in QP and wondered how somebody can lie with such conviction and sanctimony. Mind blowing.
I've said it before and I hope someone in OLO is listening. Embrace the cancellation of public funding for political parties. Bring forward a Liberal plan that would allow the electorate 'at the ballot box' to decide whether to provide a public donation to the party of their choice. Or put a box on their tax form -- with the appropriate tax deduction.
Either way, steal this one away from the desperate CONs and they'll be left peddling their lame crime and punishment and anti-gun control with all the recent shootings on the front pages...
Blogger Steve V said...
Neat headline at the G and M:
"Privilege debate tests Conservative stonewalling on detainees "
I love the assumption of stonewalling.
I love the weasel words inserted into the motion by the Liberals. You know, the caveat that this wouldn't necessarily be a confidence motion? Just one little problem: Stephen Harper can always MAKE IT a confidence motion, and he will have every justification for doing so.
You guys are strolling through a minefield and you don't even seem to know it. You have only two choices now: back down and look like fools, or bluff your way into an election. Can't wait... :)
Fred from B.C. - I think Derek Lee has much more understanding of this than you do. Given your comments all over the blogosphere, I doubt you know very much.
People are antsy, want it done in a hurry. Bob Rae (on CTV last night) outlined the "process". There are steps that have to be taken, it can't be done in 5 minutes.
I have my doubts about Milliken - he's weak. That's why Cons vote him in. If he was otherwise, they wouldn't.
Oh freddie with the tough talk, roar paper tiger roar.
I smell fear.
Oh Fred, you're ignorance is astounding. This is a constitutional/legal matter, not a matter of confidence. If Harper wants to go to the polls to escape a contempt charge, he'll have to trigger it himself. You even admitted it yourself!
"Just one little problem: Stephen Harper can always MAKE IT a confidence motion, and he will have every justification for doing so."
Really!!! He has every justification for doing so? How so? Oh please tell us he's going to explain away causing an unwanted election with a poison pill, or running to the Governor General directly to dissolve parliament. And all from escaping the Afghan questions with a contempt charge hovering over his head.
You can scream national security and hide behind our troops all you want, only the Harper apologists are buying it. Aside from maybe the National Pest, all the other media have dispelled those faux-arguments. Any possible election over this will be hung around Harper's neck, and he'll be running against transparent government, the supremacy of parliament and compliance with international law.
The grits and reformatories are only within a few points of each other, almost a statistical tie. And you want to fight an election over the themes I listed above? Good luck with a majority, because you would be really lucky to make it through and only lose 20 seats. More than likely you’ll win such a slim minority that you’ll lose government altogether.
You want to fight an election knowing that!? Where do we sign up?
You really should quit here Fred while you're behind, otherwise you'll only embarrass yourself even more.
Now be of some use here, and tell your reformatory buddies in government to quit hiding behind our troops and supply the unredacted documents to the Afghan committee already. They are more than qualified to study sensitive documents. Just like how opposition members sit on the various high-security military and foreign affairs committees down in the US.
Post a Comment