Friday, February 10, 2006

Help Stevie (re)pick his cabinet: A challenge to wankers and non-wankers alike.

After a bit of thought, I want to expand on my previous post and throw out a general challenge to the blogosphere -- that is, to wankers and non-buttheads alike.

The primary defense for the David Emerson poaching/defection is that it was done "in the best interests of the country." Note carefully -- not in the best interests of the CPC (which is an argument I'm sure wouldn't fly all that well), but in the best interests of the country overall. OK, let's put that claim to the test, shall we?

If Stevie Boy wants to make that claim for David Emerson and the position of Minister of International Trade, it only makes sense that he should be able to make that claim for every cabinet appointment of his. That is, that every appointment was done with only the interest of the entire country in mind, and that every one of those appointees was (at least arguably) the best-qualified person for that position. If he can't, then his entire argument for David Emerson crumbles into dust.

Which brings us to my challenge to my readers to propose alternative appointees to Harper's cabinet that would have been at least as qualified and competent as those who actually got the jobs. In addition, I'd propose that the (new) nominees can fall into one of two categories.

First, you're free to suggest a better appointee strictly from within the CPC, since it only makes sense that Stevie would want to appoint from within, and that's entirely his choice, of course.

In addition, you can also propose someone from outside the CPC if there's someone who would have been, hands down, a better appointment in terms of being "in the best interests of the country." I assume you can see what I'm getting at here.

If one can show that at least some of Harper's appointments are based, not on competence, qualifications or experience, but political expediency, then his "best interests" argument for Emerson falls flat and he is exposed for the hypocritical weasel that he is.

Conversely, if you wankers want to play along and you want to keep propping up the "David Emerson is in the best interests of the country" talking point, then your responsibility is to defend each and every one of Harper's appointments as absolutely the best ones he could have made, again "in the best interests of the country." (That would include fundamentalist dingbat Stockwell Day now being in charge of all of our public safety, remember?). If you can't, then you have an intellectual obligation to admit that Harper is being a hypocrite.

Let's go. Batter up.

CAVEAT: I just know that someone is going to get their panties in a bunch and snark back with something like, "Hey, as Prime Minister, Harper has the right to appoint anyone he wants to cabinet!" Why, yes -- yes, he does. But that's not the point.

The point is that, if Harper is going to defend David Emerson as the best possible person for that cabinet position, then, to be consistent, he has to be able to make the same argument for every other cabinet appointment he's made. It really is that simple.

Now ... where were we? Oh, right -- the lines are now open.

HERE, LET ME START: The new Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of La Francophonie and Official Languages? Ted Menzies. A unilingual Anglophone.

My head hurts.

1 comment:

The American Anthropologist said...

I think the most qualified and experienced Finance Minister would definitely be Paul Martin.