Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Wankers, prorogation and a new CC HQ reader challenge.
It seems like only yesterday that Canada's intellectually crippled were celebrating the ruthless political gamesmanship of Stephen Harper. What a masterful stroke, they cried, using prorogation for the second time in a year to cut the Opposition off at the knees. What a brilliant tactician, riding high in the polls, the master of his domain, yadda yadda yadda.
But these days ... oh, dear.
Which inspires one to ask, is there any evidence of a single idiot wanker who was crowing gleefully over Harper's iron-fisted dismantling of democracy only a few weeks ago, but is now sobbing into his beer at the end of the bar, lamenting, "What the fuck was I thinking?"
Seriously, if one wanders the barren wasteland of Canadian conservative intellectualism, can one find anyone who, having thought that whole prorogation was just ducky, the cat's meow, 23 Ski-Doo, is now more than happy to admit that it was an unmitigated disaster?
Feel free to check things out, and get back to me -- leave answers in the comments section.
P.S. Pointing at people who thought it was an asinine idea from the start doesn't count. What we're looking for is evidence that, somewhere in the Canadian Idiot-sphere, there exists someone who is actually capable of learning from a savage, political boot to the berries.
WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE? How about that? Although identifying Connie Fournier doesn't count since she thought prorogation sucked from the start. But the obvious sense of betrayal is amusing, don't you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Which inspires one to ask, is there any evidence of a single idiot wanker who was crowing gleefully over Harper's iron-fisted dismantling of democracy only a few weeks ago, but is now sobbing into his beer at the end of the bar, lamenting, "What the fuck was I thinking?"
Of course there isn't. They don't really care either way. It's never about saying anything substantive, it's just about scoring points. The only result they'll care about is an election and if that doesn't work out, we'll see the authentic sentiments come out: adolescent temper tantrums, internecine recriminations, the inevitable calls for Alberta to leave Confederation, the puling, the moaning, etc. etc...
What Ti-Guy said.
Ahh... what we saw in Texas--'we don't like your elections 'cause they don't elect the guys we like so we're leaving now...
What? We can't?? Well, we'll just bitch and moan about it some and then... well, nothing..."
Stop & think, guys. What happened in the US when the Republicans decided to have their question period with Obama? Whose idea was that? Do you want to give Stephen Harper the chance to do the same job on his opposition?
Seer, Harper couldn't "do the same job on the opposition." I don't hold most MPs in especially high esteem, but I don't think they could get manhandled by Harpo on the issues. For one thing, they aren't as vulnerable on the issues.
What happened in the US when the Republicans decided to have their question period with Obama?
I dunno. What did happen?
You know...not every topic here is really about America. We all really aren't Americans-in-waiting, no matter how well-intentioned (though tediously cryptic) your warnings may be.
To think that Harpo's debating skills (or any other skills for that matter) are even remotely close to Obama's is delusional.
Ahem. What's fern hill's prize?
Ahem. What's fern hill's prize?
I don't. What do you give someone for being gullible enough to champion people (lunatics at that) who've spent most of their lives attempting to destroy you and everything you stand for just because they agree with you one one, minor point of parliamentary procedure?
Besides, I'm not sure either of those two cheered on prorogation at any point.
Connie doesn't count. She joined the CAPP Facebook group even.
But what about the Junker? Was he for it before he was against it?
I'm still trying to get past the Seer stating Harper=Obama.
I mean, if we're going to start equating PM Harper to other heads of state in the world and how they handle opposition from political dissenters and public protest as seems to be the 'logic' here, I can think of more suitable equivocators...I mean equivalents.
Harper certainly isn't Obama. Obama is a smooth talker with a healthy majority in both houses of congress. He rode to office on a wave of popular support largely built around his charisma. Stevie Harper is a dull, pasty goober with not a lick of charisma who slinked into office on the coattails of disenchantment with the Liberals. To date he's won nothing more than a slightly stronger minority than he had last time.
That said, Harper has climbed up on Canada's government and ridden it like an inflatable love doll. He''s driven his agenda at every step, not the full blue plate special he might like but he's bent the rubbery old country over and banged away at it until it squeaked. And the official opposition has put up as much resistance as that inflated rubber sheep has managed. On the other side of 49, the charisma guy with the presence and the team and the mandate has waffled and quailed in the face of his opponents and their ideological allies within his own party. He got to the dance and now he's waiting for his shoes to carry him around the floor. What agenda he campaigned on or arrived at the big oval toting has been sold off, diluted and ignored.
I wish that wee had a push over useless bag of fragrant warm air in Harper's place. Hell, with Obama instead of Harper, Dion would have pushed his useless ass around like a playground bully and maybe we wouldn't be in the dismal spot we're in. Now we have a choice between Harper and Ignatieff. So Canada, would you like your shit runny or firm?
Very, uh, descriptive there Lindsay.
Seer: not a chance. While they US has probably had one question period since the nineties became the noughts of the 20th century, the loyal opposition has been at it every day that Parliament's in session... which means even the lusers are going to be better at it than the GOP was on Friday. You can hold your fantasy close to your chest if you want, but the simple truth is that five minutes with Rae would leave Harper looking like the trustifundimentarian that he undoubtedly is. He's just not that smart... and this year's prorogation pretty much proved it.
Which, as always, leads to my next question. The CPC /had/ to know that proroguing would be seriously politically damaging, and I suspect that Harper, despite his bluff words, knew that too... so what is in the documents that the Afghan committee asked for that he's willing to risk his wet steamy fantasy of a majority government to keep under wraps?
It must be something that would be even more politically damaging... something that would instantly alienate the broad middle of the Canadian public (as opposed to the CPC mouth breathers that spend so much time on the CBC website... don't those people have jobs?) and be even more damaging to both him and his fellow Cabinet members... so what is it? That is the right line of attack... why is he so willing to risk everything on keeping those secret?
"Master of his domain" indeed
Post a Comment