Dear Blogging Tories: Oh, please, I want your opinions.

See, there's this:

... government officials say that because the opposition appeared set to bring down the government before the fixed date of October 2009, the prime minister deserves the same right.

And there we have it -- the alleged defense of calling an election ahead of Stevie's vaunted "fixed" election date: that since a minority government can always be brought down by a vote of non-confidence, it should retain the inherent right to similarly pull the plug on itself. Which brings us to a number of questions I would dearly like you to address:

• If you accept this logic, then you must accept that it should apply to all minority governments, since the same situation would apply in all those other cases, correct? In other words, Harper's famous "fixed election dates" legislation simply does not apply to minority governments. Is that the position you're taking?



• Since this is clearly the position Harper is taking, can you honestly say that you knew about that loophole from the very beginning? Were you aware, from the day that Harper proposed the "fixed election dates" legislation, that it would not be binding on a minority government?



• And, finally, given that this is clearly the position Harper is taking, can you identify a single news piece back then during which Harper explained that that legislation would not apply to a minority government? Did he, at any time, make that exception unambiguously clear? And did a single one of you actually mention that on your blog more than, say, three months ago?

The above are fairly straightforward questions and, for all the bitching, whining, pissing and moaning you wanks do about us here at CC HQ, this is your chance to engage us in an intellectual manner and debate a serious issue. So you can get involved in the discussion, or you can go back to your perpetual bitching, whining, pissing and moaning. The choice is yours.

P.S. Even you, Darcey. You're welcome to join the discussion. If you can stop being such a pompous, sanctimonious fuckwit and douchebag long enough to type something intelligent.

I won't be holding my breath.

P.P.S. You're invited, too, Stephen. If you can remove your tongue from John McCain's adult diaper long enough to tap out something meaningful on your Blackberry.

WHOA, HANG ON, WHAT'S THIS? Sorry, I just noticed this part (emphasis added):

... government officials say that because the opposition appeared set to bring down the government before the fixed date of October 2009, the prime minister deserves the same right.

He "deserves" that right? Did someone at the PMO actually use the word "deserves?" Because that's a pretty telling sign right there.

If I felt I had the right to do something, that's how I'd phrase it: "I have the right." But if I'm not feeling particularly secure in my position, I might back off a bit and simply whine that I "deserve" that right, which is most emphatically not the same thing.

So did someone actually use that word? Or is that just some interpolation on the part of the reporter? 'Cuz I think that's a question that needs to be answered.