Saturday, June 25, 2005

Oh, This is Rich

Paul Martin says, "I just don't understand why in fact the Conservatives think it is so important to work hand in glove with the separatists, but they do." (Harper hits barbecue circuit accusing government of being 'undemocratic')

Am I missing something, once again? Won't be the first time.

Mr. Martin better not throw stones while he's still in a glass house.

8 comments:

Walsh Writes said...

Paul Martin is a psychopath.

koby said...

This is a very lame talking point. The Conservatives and Bloc joined forces in order to take down the government; If they had have been successful there would have been big electoral gains for the Bloc at the expense of a Federalist party with not much upside for the Conservatives. Somehow this is the same as the Liberals making a deal with the Bloc to end Conservtive obstructionism. The Bloc would vote with the Liberals to end Conservative obstruction and in return the Liberals would pass a Liberal Bill that did not affect the people of Quebec in any way. SSM marriage is already legal in Quebec. Before you get huffy and say that the Conservative obstruction was principled, let me remind of you of what the Conservatives were saying about 48 for the last couple of weeks. Conservative Jay Hill. "If we were to get a delay of C-38 (the marriage bill) until the fall and perhaps some other concession, we'd be HAPPY." "[One] [Our] primary concern of ours is that we get out of the spring session with C-38 not progressing further". In other words, delaying 48 was not a primary concern of theirs. Conservative plans to obstruct bill 48 were not principled they were tactical. As Hill explained, “What we would be looking to do for them is allow [the $4.6- billion budget bill] to go without having a full-court press and pushing them into a position where they would either have to bring in time allocation [a move to choke off debate and force a vote] with the public black eye that always brings with it, or extend the sitting into July.” Peter Mackay clarified Hill’s comments. "We will continue to oppose Bill C-48, but won't pull out all the stops or go to the wall in terms of debate”.

Steve said...

Paul Martin's hypocrisy certainly knows no bounds.

Koby, what is your problem with democracy in Quebec that you are worried about the Bloc taking seats away from a "federalist party" that has shown its total contempt for Quebec democracy?

Belinda made the same argument, and if I understand it correctly, the federalist cause somehow rests on indefinitely postponing a federal election so the Liberals do not get wiped out in Quebec. By your logic, since the Liberals are going to get wiped out in Quebec in the next election anyways, we should indefinitely postpone the next federal election. I am sure that will stop the PQ from getting elected in the next provincial election. Or maybe you would stop provincial elections too.

And, what about Martin's call for a return to civility and cooperation in Parliament? Do you think the tactics he used to pass the budget advances that cause?

As I said, Martin's hypocrisy knows no bounds.

koby said...

Steve, the deal Liberals struck with the Bloc was not on par with the deal the Conservatives struck with the Bloc in terms of its pratical implications for the country, good or bad. But if you want go fooling yourself that things are otherwise, go right ahead knock yourself out.

"And, what about Martin's call for a return to civility and cooperation in Parliament? Do you think the tactics he used to pass the budget advances that cause?"

What the hell Steve. This is not that tool John Volpe calling the Conservatives klansmen. The Conservatives had annouced they were going to delay the bill for mere tactical reasons all last week. The Liberals beat them at a game of chess.

As for civil behavior, was Peter MacKay undergoing regression thearpy to help him deal with the Stronach leaving him on thurs. night. I do not know how else to explain his Hannibal Lecter comment. It is the type of put down a 5 year old would use. It makes no sense.

Steve unless you are in the employ of the Conservative party, I would suggest, for your own good, that you move beyond a Conservatives good Liberals bad mindset. One last thing. Political talking points, of whatever stripe, are seldom good arguments.

Jim said...

Let's clear up something, right off the bat.

The Conservatives, the Bloc, and the NDP joined forces in order to take down the government. Remember all those opposition days cancelled? Not all of them were to introduce Conservative or Bloc motions of non-confidence.

The NDP managed to cut a deal and get some of their agenda pushed through. I applaud their efforts - good for them.

Second of all, I refuse to support the Liberal Party because there would have been big electoral gains for the Bloc at the expense of [the Liberals]. The Liberals have done more damage to federalism in this country, both in Quebec and in the West. My support for them would only make it worse.

Third, I never said the Conservative obstruction was principled. Any party that can use legitimate parliamentary procedures deserves a good pat on the back. I am, however, allowed to disagree with it. You'll pardon me also if I don't stand up and sing 'O, Canada' afterward, either.

As for the mindset that Conservatives good, Liberals bad, anybody is well within their rights to think that.

In my opinion, the Liberals are bad for government because:

(1) I don't support their fiscal policy. Cutting social services, cutting taxes, cutting transfer payments then returning the money in later years at a much lower rate than it was cut.

(2) I don't support their pseudo-progressive social policy. They only appear progressive when there are court challenges. Their 12 year commitment to a national daycare program only came about when they're in a minority.

(3) The bureaucracy they created is filled with corruption. I'm not blaming any elected official, so don't even go there.

To be honest, I'd rather see an NDP government than a Liberal one. At least they have an agenda and a plan.

I'm all for good government. In fact, that's all I ask for.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party does nothing to show me they are "good" goverment.

So, as it stands now, Conservatives good, Liberals bad.

Jim said...

And, while we're at it.

As for civil behavior, was Peter MacKay undergoing regression thearpy to help him deal with the Stronach leaving him on thurs. night. I do not know how else to explain his Hannibal Lecter comment. It is the type of put down a 5 year old would use. It makes no sense.

That was unnecessary on Mr. McKay's part. But, people react poorly when they are angry, tired, and frustrated.

The next time you're at a grocery store, and you're pulling into a parking spot, only to have some other guy scoop it out from underneath you, clap your hands and say, "Well played".

But, like you said, [p]olitical talking points, of whatever stripe, are seldom good arguments.

Steve said...

Koby said:

Steve unless you are in the employ of the Conservative party, I would suggest, for your own good, that you move beyond a Conservatives good Liberals bad mindset.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from what I wrote. Rather, it seems to me that you are locked in the view that the Liberals are good and the Conservatives are bad. Everything is kosher when the Liberals make a deal with the Bloc, but woe and behold if the Conservatives do.

This country is not at risk because the Liberals might lose some seats in Quebec to the separatist Bloc Quebecois. This country is at risk because of what the Liberals did to Quebec that the vast majority of francophones will not vote for them again. It is as simple as that.

Koby said...

"I'm not sure where you get that idea from what I wrote."

Because you were defending a Conservative talking point that is absurd on its face.

"Rather, it seems to me that you are locked in the view that the Liberals are good and the Conservatives are bad."

Yep. That is why I said this.

"This is not that tool John Volpe calling the Conservatives klansmen."

"This country is not at risk because the Liberals might lose some seats in Quebec to the separatist Bloc Quebecois. This country is at risk because of what the Liberals did to Quebec that the vast majority of francophones will not vote for them again. It is as simple as that."

You will get no argument from me. However two things. First, Quebecers would view the election of a Harper government as complete rejection of everything Quebec values.

Second pay attention to what I wrote. The issue at hand is whether the "deal" the Conservatives had with the Bloc would have the same implications for the country as this nothing deal the Liberals reached with the Bloc.


"Steve, the deal Liberals struck with the Bloc was not on par with the deal the Conservatives struck with the Bloc in terms of its pratical implications for the country, good or bad. But if you want go fooling yourself that things are otherwise, go right ahead knock yourself out."