I really was going to give this a rest for a bit, but I'm way too freaking irked by the theme I see running through a few posts over at Progressive Bloggers, in which those of us on the left are being encouraged to give Canadian wankers due credit for somehow summoning up some outrage over Harper's behaviour lately.
Memo to those Progressive Bloggers: Why not just cross the floor to the Blogging Tories and get it over with? Jeezus.
Here's one example, in which blogger Mark Watton links to the comments section of Andrew Coyne's blog, agreeing with Coyne that "we really should be promoting conservative blogs today." Really? Well, let's just take a look at all that right-wing outrage over at Andrew's site, shall we?
Let's see ... here's "Sean M", clearly spitting mad over David Emerson's defection:
Well, on the other hand, David Emerson ran, as did over 300 other candidates, as part of something billed as "Team Martin". That entity no longer exists, given Martin's decision to resign the leadership. The cult of personality that the Liberals promoted under Martin has in some ways given every Liberal MP elected under that banner a free pass to jump ship.
Speaking of which, when Martin decided to pack it in, was he betraying the wishes of the 30% of the electorate that supported Team Martin? If Martin resigns his seat before the next election, is he effectively telling the people of LaSalle-Emard to get stuffed, if he can't be Prime Minister he's not interested in representing them?
I'm not sure whether I support the appointments of Emerson and Fortier, but I wouldn't place too much emphasis on party purity, given that these are, after all, mainstream brokerage parties. It is possible to take these arguments too far.
Wow. You can just feel the outrage from there, can't you? And here's "Chris," obviously livid with anger:
David Emerson was loyal - to Paul Martin.
That doesn't mean he has to be loyal to Michael Ignatieff or Belinda or whoever else is going to be leading the wreck of a Liberal Party that's left.
Emerson didn't get into politics to screw around in a leadership campaign.
Watch out -- it's clear Chris is just ready to blow a gasket, isn't he? And what about Coyne himself? The fury is just palpable as he writes:
On the other hand, maybe Emerson's on to something. Maybe we should just elect MPs to act as free agents, on the basis of their personal attributes and desirability in the political marketplace: "elect me and I'll consider several offers." Instead of known quantities of MPs elected on each of several party slates, there'd be a pool of 308 unattached individuals.
Then the parties would set about trying to lure them onside -- like a giant game of Red Rover, or perhaps the NHL draft. They'd offer whatever cabinet posts they had to hand, mindful that whatever was offered to one MP could not be offered to another (as, of course, an MP could accept an offer from only one party at a time). Then the various competing "teams" or "ministries" would see who could command the confidence of the House, and we'd form a government that way.
Alas, that is not in fact how we form governments, nor was that the understanding on which Emerson sought the support of the electors of Vancouver-Kingsway.
Uh ... right. This is the community that reviled Belinda Stronach as a sellout and "whore" but, when it comes to David Emerson, what we get is, "Hey. Paul Martin resigned, so he's entitled." Yeah, those are just the sort of wanks I'll be giving props to on my blog.
Not fucking likely.
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE: OK, I'm going to backpedal a whole bunch and admit I was unfairly hard on Andrew Coyne, given what he writes here, particularly when he writes of Harper, "He lied." Sadly, Andrew's first commenter isn't inconvenienced by such weighty problems as actual principles.
[ACK! Never mind the above. I got my Andrews confused.]
And more props to Damian Brooks, and an apparently growing number of disillusioned Tories to whom he links.