Quickly, Sherman, into the wayback machine:
The latest insult to the Fathers [of Confederation] came most lately from our current Prime Minister, Paul Martin. Our Prime Ditherer’s appointed another six Liberals to current Liberal senate caucus of 47 appointed by Jean Chretien reconfirms a majority of Liberal seats in our upper chamber merely by appointment. Martin’s announcement last week allowed the appointment of two Progressive Conservative senators but this merely served as a poke in the eye to the Conservative Party of Canada as the PC Party no longer exists and instead sits opposed to the Conservatives. Paul Martin is not acting as a Prime Minister with a minority government.
Thanks, Stephen ... we'll give that earlier foaming outrage of yours all the consideration it's due.
9 comments:
Oh, the Lord is speaking through CC WV today.
"conskim"
I am NOT fucking kidding.
Locate petard; hoist.
Question remains, while some Conservatives (like me) take a dim view of Harper's appointments.. is there a Liberal alive (other than Daveberta) who will acknowledge the same regarding, particularly, Chretien and Trudeau.
Are there political thinkers who can, in fact, think beyond party loyalty, where wrong is always wrong?
In my blog last couple days I'm getting pounded by my telling Harper, "you have a choice, sir".. are there any bold Liberals who, while saying the same, will ackowledge that we have a systemic problem that Harper is simply continuing (can you say, "deal with the Bloc is always a bad idea..?")
Just a thought.. a bit of a cajones check for the rest of you..
False equivalence, roblaw. Roblaw, false equivalence. It's obvious you two have never met.
Here's the thing -- unlike Big Daddy, neither Chretien nor Trudeau campaigned on the issue of senate reform so trying to bring them into the equation is beyond precious. No, really.
..hmm..
Guess not.. sorry Lulu.. no offence, but it's exactly the same.. and the Conservatives slamming me because "do you really want Elizabeth May in Senate".. and "everything we do is out of necessity to prevent the socialist hordes getting power"..
..are the same as Liberals in particular who forget the lessons of Adscam and the beating that John Turner took becuase of Trudeau..
..I had hoped of all websites, this site would have more free-thinkers.. but, the anger at Harper just reinforces the partisan blinders.
It all smells.. and it's no sweeter from either side of the house of Parliament..
So.. it's Daveberta and I.. so far. He's a Liberal, who understands Liberal excesses while he criticizes Harper.. I'm a Conservative who acknoweldge's Harper's excesses, but who isn't about to vote Liberal for the same reasons..
Do we want something better? It's not going to happen if we refuse to question "our team".
5:45 PM
rob, the problem isn't the appointments.
I'll repeat that: The Prime Minister of Canada can appoint senators at his or her whim. That is his or her constitutional right.
The problem is that this PM, who has explicitly said that he wants to reform or get rid of the senate and basically said that he wouldn't put anyone in the senate until it was reformed is going to put 18 people in to that very body. To add to the guy who was in his cabinet and was never elected but was appointed to the senate.
That's the problem.
So yes, it is a false equivalence.
i'm not a liberal but i'll be happy to point out that trudeau and chretien served as prime ministers for a combined 26 years. trudeau appointed 81 senators during his tenure, 70 liberals, 7 progressive conservatives, 3 independents and 1 social credit. chretien was more partisan with his 75 appointments as 72 were liberal and 3 were independent. martin on the other hand appointed 17 senators, 12 liberals, 2 conservatives, 2 progressive conservatives and 1 ndp.
so in point of fact trudeau, the great conservative effigy of hate used about 10% of his appointments to seat senators whose partisan roots opposed his own. paul martin was even more egalitarian as almost 30% of his appointments were opposition. gosh i wonder how many liberals, ndp, bloc or green oriented appointments harper has in mind.
mulroney appointed 57 senators 55 from his own party with one reform and one independent so his was just over a 96% partisan rate. what's that? can't compare mulroney and big steve because the pc and the cpc are like totally different? then i suppose the cpc drones should stop calling themselves the tories. at any rate, unless prime minister porky machiavelli ponies up a surprise, he'll be batting a thousand for the partisan side.
no it ain't a perfect system but when it is operated with the better interest of the nation in mind, it does work. and that extends beyond the party roots of the individuals appointed to the character of those individuals and their ability to go beyond party loyalty to do the job of the senator, to give sober consideration to the bill coming from the house of commons. ion its present form the senate has done a bloody good job in the last few years. harper seems set to make a totally partisan, political play to shore up his weak position.
the senate is supposed to be something of a reward, an honour and a grave responsibility as the last step between the political and the judicial. those appointed are supposed to be there for their wisdom and experience, not as cronies and hacks. a distinction that i don't believe harper is willing or interested in making. his machinations are nakedly political.
Ok.. guess as long as Harper appoints one or two Liberals, you'll be happy as we'll be, well, typical.
Post a Comment