The excitement is killing me
We have the following outgoing, exhuberant, bubbly, wild-and-crazy, inspiring, charismatic, competent, experienced candidates seeking the Republican Party's nomination for the U.S. presidency in 2012:
- Tim "More Expressive than Sam Kinison" Pawlenty
- Ron "Competent in Monetary Policy And Younger Than Methuselah" Paul
- Newt "Great Hair But the Personality and Judgment of a Newt" Gingrich
I'd write more, but I'm too jittery.
10 comments:
Don't look at the line up, look at the opposition. Wait... now I'm too jitter...
*You're* jittery...they're not running for office in your country.
Though from what Mr. Kimball's been expounding, your country has it's own political issues right now.
Though from what Mr. Kimball's been expounding, your country has it's own political issues right now.
Yeah... it's called "the Conservative Party won a majority in the elections on May 2nd", confounding the experts. It leads to depression and despondency in left wingers. Although in fairness to Paulie, I have no idea what he wrote since the election. I would imagine he's lambasted Stephen Harper for not being nuanced and intellectual enough, but I could be wrong about that.
That pretty much sums it up. ;o)
Get used to it folks... President Obama. You'll be hearing it a lot for the next five years.
As for Harper, he's bad for the tone and openness of political discourse in Canada (c'mon Jeff... even you can't like his style, and the disrespect he shows for Parliament, his own caucus, and others), but I have to give the man credit - he's realigned the political spectrum for the first time in generations.
And now, all the conservatives can prepare to be disappointed, because Harper will probably govern like a slightly right of center Liberal. ;-)
"Get used to it folks... President Obama. You'll be hearing it a lot for the next five years."
*Shudders as a cold chill goes down my spine.*
Paul: all good points about Harper. I liked him much better when he was an orthodox conservative who believed in democratic reform. But I hasten to add that all successful prime ministers generally behave that way when they're in power: Trudeau had no use for his caucus, Mulroney used to ridicule his, and no one crushed dissenters within his own party like Jean Chretien. Heck, some of Chretien's backbenchers described themselves as "voting machines" and "a band of trained seals" taking order's from the PMO.
As for disrespecting Parliament, yeah, I have a huge problem with that. (Some of that originated in the fall of 2008, when there was a real and formidable danger of a backroom deal between the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. I don't think Harper was quite the same after that.)
Just noticed this - it wasn't a backroom deal. Alas, if only, but the idiots went about it very publicly, giving Harper his opportunity to flout constitutional convention and prorogue Parliament for his own political purposes. A coalition government is not only acceptable in a parliamentary democracy (see pretty much all of Europe, as well as New Zealand and at times Australia), but healthy, particularly in countries with long Anglo-Saxon parliamentary tradition. But, because of the ineptitude of Dion et al, they blew it.
But the one thing it wasn't was "backroom".
Paulie: The deal itself, in the end, may not have been "backroom", but there were plenty of backroom aspects about it, most notably the dishonest attempt to portray to the country that this was all about the Liberals and the NDP, and that the Bloc Quebecois were going to be tacked on as only a necessary mathmatical afterthought.
Balderdash: the New Democrats were talking behind closed doors for a long time with the BQ long before this became public:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20081130/conservative_budget_081130/
The first document made public glossed over the Bloc's role, with a heading that read as follows:
"This document outlines the key understandings between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada regarding a new cooperative government."
The reference to the Bloc's involvement does not occur until the third paragraph, on page 2:
"3. A 'no surprises' approach:
Within the limits of common sense and the needs of cabinet government, the two parties agree they will work together on a 'no surprises' basis.
Furthermore, upon its formation, the government will put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois."
What? Why that? Oh, because they would have had to put something in place with them. At the time, the Conservative minority government had 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals and the NDP had a combined total of 114. They needed the Bloc's agreement in order to have a shot at this, but they did everything they could to hide the Bloc's role. This document was signed by Stephane Dion and Jack Layton only.
(Full document here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Accord_en.pdf)
Now have a look at the second document, when the Bloc steps out of the shadows: http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Policy%20Frame_en.pdf
Here's the highly offensive preamble: "The new Government is supported by parties that share a commitment to fiscal responsibility, a progressive agenda and a belief in the role of Government to act as a partner with Canadians and Quebecers. Where appropriate, these goals should be pursued in full partnership and consultation with the provincial and territorial governments."
WTF? Quebecers aren't Canadians and have to be mentioned separately in a document created by an ostensible federal coalition government? I'd expect this from the Parti Quebecois, not the Liberal Party of Canada. This document was signed by Layton, Dion and Duceppe.
In the shadows, this whole process was negotiated or abetted by people who had a legacy (or whose father had a legacy) of no truck or trade with the separatists. This shameful list includes former PM Jean Chretien, MP Justin Trudeau, and former IA Minister and separatist-opposer Stephane Dion.
Anyway, the whole thing stank, and the three leaders involved went out of their way to hide the more odious elements of the deal, and even to hide the involvement of people like Chretien. That's the "backroom" element of the deal, even if they didn't hide the plan itself. But on that basis, Paul, I do have to concede your overall point.
It may have been legal, and even "normal" by western parliamentary standards, but I doubt very much it would have been "healthy", or at least any healthier than the prorogue.
Ig,
You can huff and puff all you want, but the deal itself wasn't by definition a backroom deal (as I said, if only...). That was the kind of deal that the Tories were once contemplating, and will someday contemplate again. Indeed, the Mulroney Tories actually made such a bargain, letting reams of separtists into the Party for political gain (er... just like the NDP has done). The only party that has held the line consistently against the separtists is the Liberal Party. Whatever other flaws they may have, that isn't one of them.
And yes, a Liberal / NDP coalition would have had to rely on BQ support in votes in Parliament... just as the Tories did from time to time when they were in a minority.
PK
Post a Comment