While I would normally just stretch out on my lawn chair, crack open a beer and toss rocks at the BTs from a distance, there's an exciting new development about which I'd actually like your opinion.
I refer, of course, to the recent ugly trend of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to appoint what he calls "go-to liaisons" for federal ridings. Dr. Dawg not only discusses this disturbing pattern here, but he asks some basic questions regarding simple legality and constitutionality.
Regardless of the constitutionality, though, what is obvious is that this represents what can only be described as a subversion of the basic democratic process, wouldn't you say? When a riding elects their MP, one would think they have the right to expect that person to be their "liaison" to Parliament, as opposed to some arbitrarily-chosen, unelected, Conservative political hack.
And yet, despite the really disturbing concerns this raises, I notice that not a single member of the Blogging Tories -- not one -- has seen fit to even mention this issue, much less condemn it for its flagrantly anti-democratic stance. (Heck, even the clinically insane Richard Evans of "Let Freedom Reign" calls you out on this, and when you've lost a batshit crazy winger like Richard, well, that's gotta hurt.)
So what's the deal, Stephen? Does this "liaison" thing simply not bother you? Do you approve of it? Or are you just as appalled as the rest of us, but saying so would jeopardize your standing as obedient CPoC lapdog with all that cool insider access to the latest CPoC scuttlebutt that you're always bragging about?
Seriously, Steve -- the entirety of the Blogging Tories were nowhere to be seen during the Montebello controversy, and only showed up afterwards to generate the most lame-ass justifications for the undercover cops. And now, as this story threatens to heat up, they're once again missing in action.
What gives? Is it just coincidence? Or is it a policy over at the BTs that thou shalt simply not speak ill of Glorious Leader, no matter what the circumstances? Seriously, some of us would like to know. I mean, at one time, it used to be kind of amusing. Now, though, it really is starting to get a little creepy.
Yours in cynical curiosity,
BONUS TRACK: Via the Dawg, we learn that the MSM may not be as asleep at the wheel as we might think:
I can't spill the beans, sorry. But, have already received one response from a member of the MSM who asked for my 'patience', theer will be at least one column about it in the paper later this week.
How amusing. And if this story does hit the front pages, Taylor and his pandering BT entourage will once again be left standing at the station, watching the story recede into the distance, along with their credibility. What little is left of it.
SAME OL', SAME OL': Is it even worth asking if a single BTer is covering this potential embarrassment?