From this morning's Grope and Flail:
Harper kills appointments commission
TERRY WEBER
Globe and Mail Update
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has withdrawn his pick to lead the new public appointments commission after his candidate was rejected by a Commons committee.
The move effectively kills the commission, a key part of his new ethics package.
Hmmmmmmmm ... not quite punchy enough. Here, let me help:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has withdrawn his pick to lead the new public appointments commission after his candidate was rejected by a Commons committee.
The move effectively kills the commission, a key part of his new ethics package, since Harper is such a whiny, petulant, childish little fuckwad that he refuses to submit a new candidate that the rest of the Commons committee doesn't find thoroughly reprehensible.
There we go. That reads so much better, doesn't it?
BLACKMAIL BY ANY OTHER NAME. Oh, Christ. Just when you think Stephen Harper can't possibly act more infantile, along comes this gem:
Mr. Harper said he would not put forward another candidate until his party holds a majority of seats in Parliament and can control the process of fulfilling the Tories' promise to change how appointments are made.
"The opposition parties don't want to do that, so what that tells us is we won't be able to clean up the process in this minority Parliament," he told reporters.
"We will obviously need a majority government to do that in future. That's obviously what we will be taking to the people of Canada at the appropriate time."
In other words, Harper refuses to put in place a mechanism to prevent politically-driven patronage appointments until he has a majority that will grant him the unfettered power to make politically-driven patronage appointments.
I'm betting the irony is totally lost on these folks.
BETTER AND BETTER. I didn't realize this, but POGGE points out that Harper didn't even need a majority vote of that committee -- he can simply install anyone he wants.
Describing Harper as "childish" is, it would seem, an insult to children everywhere.
11 comments:
Interesting, but doesn't your entire argument hinge on the basis of whether the person nominated was, in fact, reprehensible or not? If the guy was not so bad after all, then Harper does have some justification to be pissed, no?
Your last point, in particular, troubles me as I believe there's nothing wrong with inviting open discussion and requesting approval from appropriate places, even if you're not required. I can't fault someone for that.
mk
doesn't your entire argument hinge on the basis of whether the person nominated was, in fact, reprehensible or not?
No.
Your last point, in particular, troubles me as I believe there's nothing wrong with inviting open discussion and requesting approval from appropriate places, even if you're not required. I can't fault someone for that.
*eyeroll*
And when he requests approval and doesn't get it, he says "Fine! I'm not going to have ANY appointments commission until I can get a majority and don't have to listen to the Liberals, BQ, and NDP!"
mk,
"there's nothing wrong with inviting open discussion and requesting approval from appropriate places"
true. But if you set up a committee where the only acceptable answer is "yes", are you really doing that at all?
Does Harper have a right to be pissed about the rejection? Possibly. Depends on your perspective. Does the whole argument hinge on it? No. The argument was that setting up a committee to pick people in a non-partisan fashion is only for show if you won't accept anything it says unless you control it.
You can't say your MPs represent the will of the people and have a mandate, while simultaneously saying that the opposition MPs have no such right when you personally find them unreasonable.
There's an old lawyer adage that goes, "Don't ask a question for which you don't already know the answer."
The same would seem to hold for political nominations: Don't be so stupid as to nominate someone you already know is going to get a rough ride and who will most likely be rejected.
It's hard to believe that Big Daddy Harper didn't already know that there were grumblings from the committee regarding Morgan. And if he didn't, then he wsa simply an idiot.
I think it's more likely that Harper already knew Morgan was going to be voted down but that's what he was after. He wanted proof to be able to bitch and moan about partisan politics and obstructionism so that he could pick up his ball and go home. And what better way than to nominate someone who he knew was doomed to failure?
This whole thing strikes me as pure choreography on the part of the CPC. They're pissed on the outside but chuckling to themselves on the inside.
Describing Harper as "childish" is, it would seem, an insult to children everywhere.
Too true. :)
It's hard to believe that Big Daddy Harper didn't already know that there were grumblings from the committee regarding Morgan. And if he didn't, then he wsa simply an idiot.
Two words: Harriet Miers
Stephen Harper - becoming more like his hero every single day...
You'll like this one, CC. Jason Kenney, during Question Period, just accused the opposition of "lynching" Gwyn Morgan.
How dare you reject this rich white man for racial insensitivity! That's just like lynching!
"POGGE points out that Harper didn't even need a majority vote of that committee -- he can simply install anyone he wants."
No. He can't install Gwyn Morgan.
A vote was taken and the outcome appears to be respected and effectively binding. That's part of what I meant when I said that there's nothing wrong with open discussion. You seem to think there's something wrong with that. I'd prefer not to discourage it. Call me idealistic.
In the bigger picture, Harper certainly can be faulted for ultimately failing in his commitment. But by smacking down Harper, you're implying that the opposition is innocent in this case. I think that's what bothers me.
mk
mk wrote:
"No. He can't install Gwyn Morgan.
A vote was taken and the outcome appears to be respected and effectively binding."
That's not what the CTV article here says:
"Harper could still have proceeded in naming Morgan to chair the commission, but doing so would have gone against the will of opposition parties."
Would someone like to clarify this?
The real stupidity is the fact that Harper refuses to come up with a different candidate that is more acceptable.
He's basically packed up his marbles and left the game because he didn't get his way.
The man needs to learn the meaning behind the word compromise.
What I find interesting is that, even if the vote of the committee had been binding, it's still totally Harper's fault.
Apparently, he doesn't understand that, since he has only a minority, he has to do a little compromising or he won't get his way. If he insists on nominating offensive dingbats like Morgan, he has to expect he'll be shot down. But that's not all.
All it would have taken to have his nominee accepted is the approval of just one of the other parties. So where was the Bloc on this one? Those are the folks who are Harper's lifeline at the moment and even they abandoned him.
If Harper wants to blame someone, let him blame the Bloc. More to the point, let him blame his advisors who didn't count the votes beforehand and tell Harper that he was going to lose that one.
As I said before, I think this was all carefully choreographed. I think Harper played to lose, and is milking this for all it's worth.
Post a Comment