"Stephen Harper has ushered in the Conservatives’ promised new era of ethical and accountable government with a Senate appointment and a patronage plum.

Despite all his lofty election promises to do government differently, Harper has constructed a cabinet more with an eye to political porking than principle, an executive administration designed more to dispense regional goodies before the next election than to restore public confidence in federal institutions tarnished by years of Liberal patronage and corruption."

It's not often I quote anything from the Sun newspapers that I agree with - but that one is bang on.

Posted by: Ade at February 7, 2006 11:07 AM

---

Steve, you've got one more in your corner.

Posted by: bob at February 7, 2006 11:33 AM

---

I've said all along that David Emerson was likely asked to continue with the softwood lumber file and after he gets all the duties back that are owed to Canada, he will likely retire. Doesn't sound like he likes politics all that well, but is a business man.

Posted by: Ruth at February 7, 2006 11:34 AM

---

If this had happened the other way around (i.e. if the Liberals had just won a minority government after defeating a Conservative government and had poached one of their former cabinet ministers), you can bet teve Janke here would have posted some conspiratorial thing asking "WHAT SECRETS DOES HE KNOW? WHAT WAS THE BRIBE? DID HE SABOTAGE THE CONSERVATIVE CAMPAIGN FROM THE INSIDE????"

Posted by: thickslab at February 7, 2006 11:37 AM

---

What kind of political illiterate would compare Harriet Miers to David Emerson?

a) the more logical comparison is to that of Fortier, if one is to be made at all.

b) The Miers nomination resulted in the Alito confirmation and the political opposition in public disarray. Uncharacteristic political blunder or gender-equity neutralizing stalking horse? You be the judge.

Posted by: Kate at February 7, 2006 11:40 AM

---

Thickslab:
"If this had happened the other way around (i.e. if the Liberals had just won a minority government after defeating a Conservative government and had poached one of their former cabinet ministers), you can bet teve Janke here would have posted some conspiratorial thing asking "WHAT SECRETS DOES HE KNOW? WHAT WAS THE BRIBE? DID HE SABOTAGE THE CONSERVATIVE CAMPAIGN FROM THE INSIDE????"

Well, duh.

Posted by: Kate at February 7, 2006 11:43 AM

---

Steve , another one in your corner.

Posted by: Platty at February 7, 2006 11:43 AM

---

I am with you on this. For me this boils down to LEADERSHIP, making the hard and unpopular choices based on long term planning of what is good for the country in general and the Conservative movement in particular. One begs to ask : Will this be good for HARPER ? NO, obviously. But is this a logical choice to resolve an untenable issue (no elected conservatives in urban areas) to begin with? YES (the vulcan in me!).

I am also disturbed about how the 2 cases were brought to resolution, but I remain without reservation in support of our Leader and his vision on how we progress forward to govern this country.

Posted by: Ron at February 7, 2006 11:49 AM

---

Kate, I'm glad you agree with me that Steve is a conspiracy nut.

(Oh, Kate, while you're here, I'd like to take to opportunity to please ask you how to learn to use semicolons. Colons and Semi-colons are not the same thing.)

Posted by: thickslab at February 7, 2006 11:53 AM

---

I don't know which happened faster: Stephen Harper morphing into Paul Martin, abandoning principle and credibility along the way, or Conservative supporters adjusting their principles to conform to the prevailing tides of the day. Either way, hilarious.

All that talk about governing differently and with integrity, turning the Senate into an elected house, not patronage heaven. Turnms out it was all a bunch of lies served on a silver populist platform.

I remember voting for Chretien, thinking that he would clean up government and restore integrity. Soon after, I started getting the creeping suspicion I'd been sold a bill of goods.

Turns out it's happening again, except instead of creeping, the suspicion is sprinting.

Hey conservatives: Ever get the feeling you've been had? I thought conservatives were smarter, better able to sniff out bullshit, not prone to being taken for a ride... What the hell happened?

Meet the new boss....

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 11:54 AM

---

Thank you! Although I wasn't sure what to think of this scenerio abour Emerson and Fortier, I'm starting to swing to Harper's defence because of your and Kate's clear arguments.

Canadian politics are what they are and you do need to use every tool at your disposal to make sure you have the opportunity to make change before your political ticket is punched.

Posted by: saskfishtales at February 7, 2006 11:55 AM

---

Janke you can ad me to the 'whats the big deal' list too.

Posted by: braaten at February 7, 2006 11:57 AM

---

What kind of political illiterate would compare Harriet Miers to David Emerson?

What kind of cunning and disingenuous propagandist would imply a whole lot without actually saying it directly, thus providing herself with future plausible deniability?...ie: "I never called [fill in blank] a political illiterate!"

...No, no..wait...lemme guess...

The comparison Kate, is with the reaction among the party faithful, not in the exact details.

You're welcome. :)

Posted by: Ti-Guy at February 7, 2006 11:58 AM

---

I agree that this is a canny choice for the good of the country (re softwood lumber) that is inconsistent with patronage or corruption. Harper is obviously not rewarding Emerson--Emerson slagged the Tories during the campaign. Emerson has made a defensible choice to serve in the same portfolio--the Liberals can hardly complain he is unsuitable for the role. The only legitimate gripe would be from the riding constituents who voted for a party rather than for a person. But the parliamentary system permits that, and Harper did campaign on more free votes and autonomy for MPs, so one cannot accuse harper of duplicity or hypocrisy.

The issue of patronage will arise down the line in the not improbable event Emerson gets turfed by his riding in the next election or leaves to avoid a defeat.

Posted by: murray at February 7, 2006 11:58 AM

---

We have heard for years how the Liberals did what they did to save Canada - after all what's a few hundred million to save such a great country? We have been told how Canadians would greatly benefit from $2 billion on gun registry etc.

When the Liberals talked about how they were faced with great problems in Quebec therefore they acted to save Canada - and if a few bad apples took advantage then so be it - Conservatives cried out against doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. Now of course doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is okay - because we are trying to build for the future.

What would Harper be willing to do to save Canada if he was faced with the same problems the Liberals had when they had it - I think he would do almost anything - the end justifies the means.

Conservative / Liberal – So tell me what is the difference?

Posted by: Gary McHale at February 7, 2006 11:59 AM

---

What's all this I hear?

Conservatives arguing that the end justifies the means? That "you need to use every tool at your disposal to make sure you have the opportunity to make change before your political ticket is punched."

Sounding more and more like Liberal party supporters by the second.

Parliament: Check your integrity at the door.

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 12:03 PM

---

And you can add me into your corner as well.

Posted by: PhantomObserver at February 7, 2006 12:03 PM

---

No, you are not alone. Politics is a contact sport and until the rules are changed you don't win points by ignoring the tactics of your opponents.

Posted by: glenda at February 7, 2006 12:05 PM

---

Glenda:
"No, you are not alone. Politics is a contact sport and until the rules are changed you don't win points by ignoring the tactics of your opponents."

And you don't earn credibility by adopting the tactics of your opponents that you criticized when it was convenient.

I thought the Conservatives were gonna take the high road....

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 12:08 PM

---

MP's are elected for who they are, not their party affilation. This is why an MP is elected in a riding, not from party lists. Therefore, MP's should have the freedom to change their party.

Although not illegal, this does not mean Emerson's (or Belinda's or Brison's) crossing is moral.

However, this is not Stephen Harper's problem. This is between Emerson and the people in his riding. If they disagree with his choice they can pass judgement on it during the next election.

As PM, Harper must do what he thinks is right for Canada and his government. Pass judgement on either of them, as is your right as a citizen, but those saying that this is a demonstration that the CPC is just as corrupt as the Libs (after the years of uncountable Lib scandals) need to get their head out of their ass.

Posted by: MB at February 7, 2006 12:09 PM

---

Dave, you're sounding like a broken record.

Harper has spent political good will on the parts of voters to make a decision that's BEST FOR CANADA. I don't like floor crossing, but I strongly believe in using the best people for the job, for the good of the nation, regardless of the party that they represent.

Time will tell. If Emerson does his job well, Harper will be vindicated. If it turns out that Emerson is useless (Which I really doubt), then the next government is Liberal again, and you're happy. My money's on Harper.

Posted by: Andrew at February 7, 2006 12:13 PM

---

"ranks sorely lacking urban representation by the way"

I really resent this idea. Do the million residents of Southern Alberta constitute rural? There are cities all across Canada that have representation in the new government. Let them speak for cities for a change.

If Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver decided to vote liberal (when every poll pointed to a conservative minority) then they should have to live with only being represented in opposition.

Posted by: at February 7, 2006 12:13 PM

---

Hey folks!!! Let's play "Know your Conservatives!"

http://www.tdhstrategies.com/home.html

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 12:15 PM

---

"ranks sorely lacking urban representation"

ARGH! Angry, I thought you better than to repeat this myth. The Conservatives have lots of urban representation! We won every seat in Edmonton, Calgary, and Saskatoon; 3/4 in Regina; the bulk of the ridings in Quebec City; both St. John's ridings; and only lost in the downtown cores of Vancouver, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Hamilton, winning a large chunk of the suburban & outlying ridings for all those centres -- heck, we ran the table outside the cores of Winnipeg & Ottawa.

The list of cities that completely shut out the Conservatives is a pretty short one. The kicker is that Montreal & Toronto happen to be on it. So let's not fall into the "no urban representation" trap that the Libs & MSM want to push us into. It's a "no Montreal & Toronto representation" issue. Those cities didn't much give a damn that Calgary was on the outside looking in at Liberal governments for the past 13 years, and Edmonton was just barely there, so I don't see why we have to get all hand-wringy that they've voted themselves away from the table now.

Posted by: Ian in NS at February 7, 2006 12:15 PM

---

Harper had another choice, he could have had Emerson sit as an independent but still made him Cabinet minister or, better yet, Parliamentary Secretary to international trade so he could influence/guide the softwood talks but wouldn't be a full minister.

I don't dispute Harper has made a good selection but the optics stink, especially for Emerson's constituents and sitting as an independent would help with the stench.

It looks like Harper and Emerson are saying the ends justify the means which is scary to me since that is what Chretien said over Adscam.

I'm also very concerned with the senator appointment but in this case, my concern is the portfolio not the methods (which since it isn't a permanent senate position was the best way of giving Montreal cabinet representation). I believe that Public Works should have gone to an Alberta minister since the Western mind-set is not traditionally "government gives us everything."

Public Works is a scandal prone ministry and I hate the thought of it continuing to be run by a someone from a province that has, regardless of political party, managed to produce a lot of scandals in the past.

Posted by: KJH at February 7, 2006 12:16 PM

---

The hypocrisy, both from the Conservative party and their dwindling supporters is laughable:

Elected Senate? "Was important for 12 years. Not important now that we are in power."

Crossing the floor? "To be encouraged now that we are in power. Ss long as we ask the member crossing first."

Ethics and Accountability? "You actually believed that? Not too bright, are you - do you live in Ontario, by chance?"

If Harper keeps this up, the Right in this country will be back in the stone ages in no time.

Posted by: Lew at February 7, 2006 12:17 PM

---

Andrew: you're missing the point. IF David Emerson is the right man for the job, why didn't Stephen Harper say so during the election?

IF David Emerson wanted to be a conservative, why didn't he run as one, or at the very least, give up his seat and run as a conservative in a by-election?

If Conservatives are OK with MPs crossing the floor, then why was so much venom aimed at Belinda Stronach? And why aren't any conservatives apologizing for criticizing behaviour that is perfectly acceptable in their party?

Finally, if Stephen Harper is the man to restore integrity to government, why is he allowing David Emerson to cheat his constituents out of the Liberal representation they voted for, and why is he appointing n unelected person to cabinet and to the Senate (aninstitution that he has said needs to be reformed and made more democratic).

With all my heart, I apologize profusely for sounding like a broken record, but methinks your problem is not so much with the record itself (the conservatives have a few broken records of their own), but with the song that's being played.

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 12:21 PM

---

Steve, I am behind you guys too. MK Braaten too. There are plenty out there who think this was a good choice.

Even the Vancouver Board of Trade does
http://www.officiallyscrewed.com/blog/archives/00000226.html#comments

And Liberal Premiere Campbell as well.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at February 7, 2006 12:21 PM

---

I am officially annnouncing I am moving to the agnostic corner on this issue now. Although angrier than "Angry", I have no choice but to wait and see what happens.

The appointments obviously have such bad impact on credibility, it must have been thought through very carefully - so I wait with fingers crossed.

And to the liberals who are say naaagh, naagh; please note that the Conservatives did not cheer as the Libs did with BS. Au contraire, we shouted and comlained.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at February 7, 2006 12:22 PM

---

The disgust and disbelief that washed over me when I became aware of the two surprise appointments that Mr. Harper has made to his Cabinet has just about left me speechless.

Great job Mr. Prime Minister, your first day in office and your actions have clearly demonstrated that your public displays of indignation and outrage when Ms. Stronach crossed the floor to sit as a Liberal was one big farce.

Your appointment of Mr. Emerson and Mr. Fortier to your Cabinet has proven that voter apathy and cynicism toward politicians in this country is obviously justified, regardless of whichever party is in power.

I had high expectations that you and your new government would not show the same degree of contempt for the voting public as the previous administration.

Oh well, your not the first politician that has not lived up our expectations, and I’ll bet my shirt you wont be the last. Unfortunately.

Posted by: Guardsman at February 7, 2006 12:29 PM

---

If the Tories are able to solve the softwood lumber problem with the United States, seats all over Canada would become vulnerable to the Tories. Having someone who is already familiar with the problems increases the odds that the problem can be solved.

The softwood lumber issue could turn out to be key, to a future conservative majority government.

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 12:30 PM

---

ARGH! Angry, I thought you better than to repeat this myth. The Conservatives have lots of urban representation! We won every seat in Edmonton, Calgary, and Saskatoon; 3/4 in Regina; the bulk of the ridings in Quebec City; both St. John's ridings; and only lost in the downtown cores of Vancouver, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Hamilton, winning a large chunk of the suburban & outlying ridings for all those centres -- heck, we ran the table outside the cores of Winnipeg & Ottawa.

Total population of Alberta: 3,223,400
Total population of Toronto: 5,304,100

But you are right, an understanding of urban issues is not missing, per se, from the Conservative government. But to say Toronto's concerns are understood if you understand Calgary's concerns, or for that matter, Hamilton's, is a bit glib.

For example, there is a relationship between Toronto and Hamilton (and with Oshawa, Niagara, etc, etc) that is a function of Toronto's role as a hub for the area. As such, Toronto's interests can be different from, even at odds with, the interests of these other communities. They are not merely both cities.

But again, simply saying "no urban representation" simplifies the problem far too much.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 7, 2006 12:30 PM

---

I was just a young guy when Jack Horner crossed the floor and joined the Liberals. I was a strong Horner supporter and felt totally betrayed. My democratic rights were not upheld in Horners decision to cross the floor. I was totally opposed to the Liberal gov't and what they stood for. By crossing the floor Jack Horner took my vote against the Liberals and took it too the Liberals. How is democracy upheld when this happens?

Posted by: Ben at February 7, 2006 12:31 PM

---

Curtis:

If the Tories are able to solve the softwood lumber problem with the United States, seats all over Canada would become vulnerable to the Tories. Having someone who is already familiar with the problems increases the odds that the problem can be solved.

The softwood lumber issue could turn out to be key, to a future conservative majority government.

Now we're getting somewhere. This confirms my suspicions that Stephen Harper and the CPC's agenda has less to do with restoring integrity, ethics and true democracy than with trying their damnedest to put themselves in power for as long as possible.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 12:33 PM

---

Three cruise ships are about to depart Halifax, NS on an around the world cruise.

The respective Captains of these ships are David Emerson, Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison.

Which of these three Captains’ should you trust to get you back home safely?

Neither, all three have previously deserted what they have concluded are sinking

ships, what guarantee do you have they won’t do it again.

Posted by: Guardsman at February 7, 2006 12:44 PM

---

Initially I was also very disappointed to hear about this deal since I remember hearing that the Conservatives were not going to continue this practice. However, after reading a lot of the comments, it's starting to look like it's not such a bad deal for anyone involved.

Consider the three ways people would have voted Emerson in:
1) voting for Emerson the person - he's still elected, but he's now part of the ruling party
2) voting for PMPM - he's no longer PM, so there's no change
3) voting for the Liberal party - they lost, and Emerson's switch does not cause a change in the balance of power; especially if PMSH allows free votes in parliament as promised

I'm still disappointed that it happened because of the optics (similarity to the BS power grab), but as long as Emerson is free to vote as he chooses in Parliament, it doesn't hurt his constituents at all.

However, if they ever try to force his vote on an issue I hope he will have the integrity to refuse, leave his cabinet position and go independent.

Grook

Posted by: Grook at February 7, 2006 01:03 PM

---

Isnt the goal obtaining and retaining power?

Granted the Tories will have to solve a doozie of a problem with the softwood lumber... But the lumber industry is a big employer all across the country. It only stands to reason, that if the industry picks up, employment picks up, and the Tories vote will pick up votes... See the logic in that?

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 01:13 PM

---

Steve...Put me in your corner as well. Having a Liberal mole in the CPC is a great startegy.

I can picture the cartoons in my mind's eye if the softwood crisis is resolved. Spruce trees sprouting out of PMS Harper's head topped with the Canadian flag in all its glory, proudly waving the red and white of the Liberal party for all to see.

NOTE: There's another 'Ron' posting, beware of imitators.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 7, 2006 01:17 PM

---

"For example, there is a relationship between Toronto and Hamilton (and with Oshawa, Niagara, etc, etc) that is a function of Toronto's role as a hub for the area. As such, Toronto's interests can be different from, even at odds with, the interests of these other communities. They are not merely both cities."

But these concerns, especially under a conservative government, should be dealt with on the provincial or municipal level. The Federal government should be dealing with NATIONAL concerns - like crime, or even transportation. Things that ALL cities deal with.

"Total population of Alberta: 3,223,400
Total population of Toronto: 5,304,100"

Besides, doesn't a lack of representation for 13 years x 3 million Albertans = 2(?) years for 5 million?

Posted by: taylor at February 7, 2006 01:17 PM

---

"Would it be best for Stephen Harper to find an expert on the softwood lumber issue from his own ranks, ranks sorely lacking urban representation by the way? Of course."

Angry, how can you jump on the MSM's bandwagon of half-truths that the CPC is lacking in urban representation?? Diane Ablonczky, Steven Fletcher would probably insist that Calgary and Winnipeg are urban areas, as would Fabian Manning of St. John's!

Posted by: Angela at February 7, 2006 01:29 PM

---

Frankly who cares? Alberta gets left out of the government for decades at a time, and nobody gives it a second thought. Its Toronto's turn. Big deal...

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 01:33 PM

---

Angry, how can you jump on the MSM's bandwagon of half-truths that the CPC is lacking in urban representation??

I'm ashamed to say it's very simple. I'm from Toronto. We have a blind spot when it comes to recognizing other cities as cities.

Sheesh, I'm sorry already.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 7, 2006 01:36 PM

---

I don't know why Alberta wants to take Toronto's place....It's not all that great; out of control crime, broken promises, homelessness, drugs, gangs, urban decay, etc.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 7, 2006 01:44 PM

---

Don't be too sorry Steve. From my personal interactions yesterday and today with other colleagues at the "artsy-farty" school where I teach, I found *no one* who felt that Harper had done a Bad Thing.

Most of the "public outcry" is from so-called conservative media personalities -- many of whom I know have some built-in antipathy towards Harper. Remember all of the "red-necked" Albertan crap we heard during the 2004 election, and then last year around the budget vote? Much of that came from self-proclaimed conservative mainstream media-types.

Oh yeah, and I'm in Toronto, too (and from N.S. originally).

Posted by: CERDIP at February 7, 2006 01:49 PM

---

I'm also in your corner.

Posted by: Greater Toronto Area Conservative at February 7, 2006 01:52 PM

---

You're not alone on this Steve, not by a long shot.

Off topic:
If you get a chance to check out Duke MaGoo's site, it's a dandy.

Posted by: Pat at February 7, 2006 01:54 PM

---

Steve: You quoted from David Warren's piece but the point of the piece was to encourage people to remove Liberals from power and replace them with something a little bit better.

"I would vote for my local Conservative if he had two heads and five elbows and was married to a same-sex yeti in Tibet. And I would vote for him with a clean conscience."

Vancouver Kingsway voters chose not to do so and soundly rejected the conservative candidate, giving him less than 19% of the vote (compared to 43% for Liberals and 33% NDP.)

How would Warren have felt if his Two-headed Conservative suddenly became a Liberal after being elected? Would the little bit of good his member might bring to the Liberals be worth the betrayal?

Again, I see this appointment as being positive for Canada but the ends don't justify the means and there were other ways Emerson's expertise could have been used by Harper without 'stealing' all those Liberal votes.

Posted by: KJH at February 7, 2006 01:58 PM

---

What a difference a day makes.

Disdain and disgust morph into doggerel delight.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 7, 2006 02:00 PM

---

Steve: You quoted from David Warren's piece but the point of the piece was to encourage people to remove Liberals from power and replace them with something a little bit better.

I read the piece. I just liked the concept best vs good. It applies in a lot of situations. I just wanted to give David Warren credit for using that phrase. The piece wasn't the point.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 7, 2006 02:01 PM

---

Let me recap the logic in an earlier post: Harper is just a political animal because he wants the best person in the job of handling the softwood lumber dispute so that the issue is more likely to turn out well and, therefore, generate more Tory seats. Hmmmm. Produce good results for the country as a means to get elected. And what is the problem with that?

As I see it, in this case the means justifies the end!

Posted by: Murray at February 7, 2006 02:08 PM

---

Again Wrongo Rono blessed us with his insight...

That you would feel 'disdain and disgust' really doesn't surprise me, its just another example of how the left vilifies their opponents.

"doggerel delight" well, your delight maybe short lived, as this is probably the best team that Stephen Harper has available to him. When they start to get things done, and start gaining support, the Liberals will have no credible argument against them.

Please remain in your seats, the boogey man has left the building.

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 02:10 PM

---

Curtis...maybe I should start calling you 'wrongo'.

You're spending too much time trying to prove me wrong and not enough time carefully reading then thinking.

My comment was on the overall mood of CPC posters who yesterday felt betrayed but today are now jumping on the noble bandwagon.

Try installing a shock absorber between the grey fluff in your head and your keyboard finger.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 7, 2006 02:19 PM

---

I'm in PM Stephen Harper's corner...you bet I am.

If I find out that the Conservatives have been handing paper bags of cash across or under the table to well-connected friends, then I might not be anymore.

I have come to believe that Stephen Harper makes every decision in a very thoughtful way. He will do what's best for the country, and what's best for the country is a Conservative government in power. I trust his decisions.

I, for one, am not going to let the MSM sway my thoughts and opinions any longer.

The MSM is the last place I want to hear about "ethics".....they would do well to take an inventory of themselves.

RZ
(Edmonton/Toronto)

Posted by: RZ at February 7, 2006 02:20 PM

---

RZ...Blue bags stuffed with cash will soon be a reality. Wheels don't turn unless they're greased.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 7, 2006 02:34 PM

---

The comparison was not of David Emerson to Harriet Miers. I mentioned the Harriet Miers appointment as an example of what a blogswarm can do. That is where the comparison ended.

If you're going to criticize, you'd best be sure you understand the context.

Posted by: Wonder Woman at February 7, 2006 02:34 PM

---

Brilliant!Martin created the city state dilema and Prime Minister Harper has cut the liberals off at the knees.The sitting Toronto City Council Jack Layton & Oliva Chow just got slam dunked.Brilliant!

Posted by: Simeon at February 7, 2006 02:36 PM

---

Sorry Wonder Woman. Correction coming up.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 7, 2006 02:38 PM

---

Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

Speech To The Electors Of Bristol

Excerpt:

Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs—and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living.

These he does not derive from your pleasure—no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment;

and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent.

If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior.

But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination;

and what sort of reason is that in which the determination precedes the discussion, in which one set of men deliberate and another decide, and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments? >>>

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/burkee/extracts/chap4.htm

Posted by: maz2 at February 7, 2006 02:44 PM

---

Simeon...What have you been smoking?

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 7, 2006 02:46 PM

---

Thank you, Steve.

Posted by: Wonder Woman at February 7, 2006 02:47 PM

---

Emerson is by far the best man for the job, for BC, for the portfolio, and for the riding. The problem is the riding voted Liberal. Since the rules for this haven't been changed, in fairness, Harper-Emerson should set a by-election perhaps 18 months from now where Emerson can be judged by his riding based on his record. This allows Harper to benefit from a very experienced Minister while addressing the democratic issue in due time. By promising this by-election now, it should quell much criticism.

Posted by: brock at February 7, 2006 02:50 PM

---

Just a maz ing going back to the 1700s to get the correct spin.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 7, 2006 02:50 PM

---

Obviously this whole thing has provided partisan opportunity to use the New Boss/Old Boss slam.

But if you can be objective enough to separate the issue of Emersons qualifications, from his decision to cross the floor the way he did, then you are able to see that it just boils down to an "End Justifies the Means" ethic.

An honest, objective analysis indicates that Emerson is very capable, provides continuity in his role, and appears to be a very good asset to the governmemt and to us, the people.

But that is separate from the betrayal of his constituents that voted for Liberal representation.

Crossing the floor is not a new event in Canadian politics, and it is an acceptable action when it represents the will of the constituents.

While some voters are more interested in electing the candidate than the party, others consider the party platform to be the most important factor when choosing a representative.

For any elected representative to act contrary to the will of the constituents is a breakdown in Representative Democracy.
And that is the issue!

Arguments about how well he will do the job, or ridiculous rhetoric about evil parties, are totally missing the point.

I voted for Belinda Stronach as my Conservative representative in 2004, and was pleased she won in a very close race against the Liberal candidate.
When she crossed the floor, she no longer represented my party platform.
The fact that she won by a much larger margin as a Liberal in the recent election, proves that she could have won a by-election earlier.
But she didn't and therefore sacrifieced her integrity.

It doesn't matter that Belinda is less experienced than David Emerson. It doesn't even matter that I like the person.
What matters is that Canadian democracy is Representative, and it is not representative until the electors say it is.
Belinda should have run a by-election.
David should run a by-election.
Stephen Harper should either require it happen before Parliament begins, or insist that Emerson sit as a Liberal Member in a Conservative Cabinet.
(Wow, that would be interesting!)

I am glad Emerson is qualified for the job.
But achieving a good "End" does not justify an enethical "Means".

The Conservative war cry of Ethics and Change and Democratic Reform, rings hollow when ethics are sacrificed, and change is hard to see, and representation of constituents is ignored.

If Representative Democracy is good, the Enemy of the Good is ignoring the represented.

Newmarket, ON

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 7, 2006 02:50 PM

---

Holy Cow Scott!!!!

Way to cut to the chase!

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 02:54 PM

---

So are you going to change your blog to "Not So Angry" I wonder what's next on the Good for Canada agenda?
And I agree with Dave, meet the new boss

Posted by: harb at February 7, 2006 02:54 PM

---

Looks like it's time for me to go....people are starting to agree with me
;)

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 02:57 PM

---

Steve, I agree with you and Kate.

Just had a call from a long-time friend and a long-time Liberal backroom guy with *lots * of connections. I respect this guy immensly. He said he thought it was a good move and didn't find fault with it at all. He said Emmerson was a good man and might even solve the softwood lumber issue now. Hard to do when every second sentence coming out of your boss's mouth is about hating Americans. Those days are over and maybe Emmerson can get this issue behind us. I look for some phone calls between Bush and Harper and for this issue to be solved soon. That would be a big feather in Harper's hat. I mean, even using Martin's own man he was able to solve this long standing issue.

If you don't show "any" respect for your neighbours, and say so constantly, it's real hard to get them to sit down with you and listen when you have a problem they might be able to help you with.

Posted by: John Crittenden at February 7, 2006 03:02 PM

---

Public Works Minister Michael Fortier — who stepped into a key cabinet post despite not seeking election — told reporters Tuesday that he did not run for office last month because it "wasn't the right situation."

"I didn't run in the election because I didn't want to run in the election," Mr. Fortier said, exiting the first meeting of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's caucus in Ottawa.

"I had a great career, five young kids, and so it wasn't the right situation for me to run when the election came around. That's just the simple truth."

Thank you Stephen Harper, for restoring integrity and accountability to government.

*coughjackasscough*

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 03:03 PM

---

"I want to say personally that I have always gotten along with Mr. Emerson," newly appointed Justice Minister Vic Toews said. "I found him to be a non-partisan individual.

OH REALLY?????

Here's some wicked cool examples of non-partisan-ism:

http://www.tdhstrategies.com/home.html

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 03:06 PM

---

Stephen Harper has done something that portrays him in a NEGATIVE light. Why would he do something so controversial?

I believe he did it, because it will be good for CANADA. Softwood Lumber dealt with is going to be a huge boon for Canada. Are the liberals here so blindly partisan that you'll cut off your nose to spite your face?

As for Emerson, why would he do something that would resonate so negatively with his voters?

From everything I've read about him, he's a businessman that is in politics to get things done. It's not purely a power grab, as I don't see him as being a career politician. He wants the cabinet post because it's the best way to serve his province & constituents, as well as being the best use of his talents.

Check with political groups in BC, and see how they feel about it. My guess is that anyone involved in the lumber industry is VERY happy that Emerson is taking the post.

In terms of integrity, Stephen Harper is consistently on record as supporting the right of MP's to cross the floor. A defection from your party will always hurt, but he doesn't oppose the political power of MP's to do so. Because he knew he would take heat for the decision, I feel that he's taking the hit politically in order to do what's best for the nation. That strikes me as an interest for the nation that matters more to me than maintaining an illusion of moral perfection. (They're politicians. They have all made moral sacrifices to get where they are.)

Posted by: Andrew at February 7, 2006 03:07 PM

---

John...The keyword is 'might'. The only real way to solve this made in America lumber dispute is to send thousands of Canadian troops into Iraq.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 7, 2006 03:10 PM

---

Albertan Myron Thompson predicts that constituents will give him an earful over Mr. Fortier's appointment to the Senate to gain a cabinet job plus Mr. Emerson's switch in parties to get his job.

Mr. Thompson said he has never supported appointing senators or MPs' switching parties without benefit of by-elections but says he is willing to trust that Mr. Harper knows what is best.

Translation: Gotta keep my mouth shut and my lips puckered if I wanna get me one of those sweet cabinet appointments.

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 03:11 PM

---

Steve, how far did you push the borders to say that Toronto has a pop of 5+ million people?

Posted by: Jeff at February 7, 2006 03:19 PM

---

Steve, how far did you push the borders to say that Toronto has a pop of 5+ million people?

All the way to Calgary!

Seriously, the number came from Wikipedia, and it reflects the GTA.

I'll replace it with a better number if you have one and a source for it.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 7, 2006 03:21 PM

---

Toronto proper is around 2.5 million.

Posted by: Lew at February 7, 2006 03:33 PM

---

Dave...Not to worry, keeping lips puckered is a Conservative trait.

Myron sounds like a real piece of work, fearing his constituents.

Be brave Myron!

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 7, 2006 03:36 PM

---

Steve,

I agree with you.

Perhaps, the appended item explains some of the posters being upset by the recruitment of David Emerson, Ph.D. to the Cabinet. A good CEO chooses the best man for the job. At this point, judging from Emerson's CV, the choice should benefit Corporation Canada.

"Politics is stupid.

The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.""

Posted by: Cú-faire at February 7, 2006 03:38 PM

---

Myron should be afraid. All of us ex-Reformers are wondering just why we joined the new Conservative party - just to see our major principles thrown out the window on Day 1.

Harper may have representation all over Canada and in the cities now, but I think he has cut off his nose to spite his face.

Posted by: Lew at February 7, 2006 03:40 PM

---

Your new Conservative Party slogan:

"trust that Mr. Harper knows what is best"

It's worked great so far, just ask Diane Ablonczy and Jason Kenney.

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 03:41 PM

---

According to Toronto.ca the population of Toronto is 2.48 million people...

John...The keyword is 'might'. The only real way to solve this made in America lumber dispute is to send thousands of Canadian troops into Iraq.

I think we could find another solution. Other than super-size the troops in Iraq... (I hate to break it to you - but Canadian troops are already there - have been there from the start) What? You expected the former government would be honest about that?

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 03:43 PM

---

Dave: Partisan bullshit aside:

Do you feel that Emerson in the post of International Trade will be good, or bad for Canada?

Posted by: Andrew at February 7, 2006 03:45 PM

---

Andrew:

first of all, what makes you think what I write is partisan bullshit?

I'm a small L liberal, and in this election I actively supported any candidate that wasn't a Liberal. I was very pleased to see Stephen Harper get into the PMO. That is until yesterday when he forgot everything he stood for and became a purely political animal with not a shred of integrity.

As for Emerson in international trade, here's where I stand:

I don't know much about the guy, but if everyone thinks he'll be good in that portfolio, who am I to argue? Having said that, the guy is a liar and a fraud and an opportunist who's interested in being an MP only if he gets his greasy little hands on his own ministry. And the conservatives have zero integrity or self respect if they're willing to allow into their ranks someone who said the vile and reprehensible things Emmerson said while a Liberal. I have no idea why any government, let alone one that campaigned on a platform of ethics and integrity, would want such a transparent opportunist as a high-profile member.

There were plenty of alternative candidates as well as scenarios.

Stephen Harper COULD have said something to the effect of "I'd love to have Mr. Emmerson in my cabinet, and as soon as he gives up his seat and wins re-election as a Conservative I'll be happy to have him as a member of my cabinet"

What Stephen Harper ACTUALLY said through his actions was "F*ck you, all of you loyal Conservatives. Now that I'm PM, I won't need your votes for a while, and I can buy them when I need them. I don't give a sh*t about any of that bullsh*t I spewed during the election. I'm gonna do what I feel like doing and if you don't like it, take a long hard slurp on my little PM here."

I gotta give tit to Stephen though: He's certainly a fast learner.

Here's hoping his supporters are also fast learners.

Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 04:03 PM

---

Lew, I agree. Why did the Reform party start up? I don't know the "official" reason but to me it was because eastern interests were placed first all the time and even the Tory party was controlled by Red Tories. After all those battles and different parties what do we have now? A party that has to look out for eastern interests with a Red Tory platform. What a waste of 15 years.

Posted by: Ben at February 7, 2006 04:46 PM

---

Steve,

Despite all the loud shouts of dismay, I think you did a great job of demonstrating that Harper would only make such a move if it was the *right* one, especially considering the flak he's taking for it.

I've got my fingers crossed that it all works out - and if the softwood lumber dispute is solved, then I will consider it definitely worked out, and to everyone's advantage.

Take heart, you're not alone. :)

Patricia

Posted by: Patricia at February 7, 2006 04:57 PM

---

Dave said:

What Stephen Harper ACTUALLY said through his actions was "F*ck you, all of you loyal Conservatives. Now that I'm PM, I won't need your votes for a while, and I can buy them when I need them. I don't give a sh*t about any of that bullsh*t I spewed during the election. I'm gonna do what I feel like doing and if you don't like it, take a long hard slurp on my little PM here."

I guess the word "actually" means the exact opposite of what I always thought it meant.

Posted by: Another Dave at February 7, 2006 05:48 PM

---

Mr. Harper has once again proven himself to be bold man! The easy way to build a Cabinet would have been to include a couple more Alberta MPS that paid their dues. However, against conventional wisdom Mr. Harper decided to go another route. A route he undoubtably knew would be controversial on all sides of the political spectrum.

Conservatives supporters pride themselves on what? Being more ethical than the Liberals? Not all that difficult to achieve! This may not pass the smell test for some, but it is not illegal. One could argue that the voters in both Vancouver and Montreal will be better served.

We Conservatives have been in the political wilderness for a long time. Should we torch our Leader on the first instance of perceived imperfection? I believe Mr. Harper noted recently that his government will make mistakes. Personally I don't believe this is one of them.

I will admit that at first I was somewhat non-plussed by the most controversial of the Cabinet choices. Upon further review the audacity and deviousness of it makes me smile. Thank God SH isn't a Liberal.

Is Mr. Harper a brilliant leader and a Great Right Hope? Or just another sleazy lifer politician using his position for personal gain?

History will decide, not the media, MSM, pajama or any other form!

Posted by: Proud K-W Conservative at February 7, 2006 06:09 PM

---

I don't think Ive ever been nonplused before... Maybe that's how I feel...

His cabinet is certainly a bold and creative departure from the traditional political route. Maybe that will serve him well, Maybe the liberals are nonplused too, instead of a honeymoon Harper bought himself a confused opposition, who are stuck in the box, that Mr Harper left behind.

I saw the liberal leader of the house on tv, the day of the swearing in. He was definitely nonplused. Does nonplussing last longer than a honeymoon?

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 08:17 PM

---

Every Conservative new Minister will be trying to sit atop a huge Liberal-appointed bureaucracy whose comfort zone is the Liberal party on top.

Note the Mulroney-era leaks from the bureaucracy to counter Mulroney's effectiveness.

The most important thing for this new tentative, minority harper government, is to pick the highest quality Ministers available to sit on top of this liberal-oriented heap.

Emerson is a high quality Minister with the experience necessary to make a success of the files he now heads. This is good for both BC and the country.

Posted by: brock at February 7, 2006 08:30 PM

---

The fact remains that what Stephen Harper did was neither illegal or unethical. It was unconventional. Had a ministry been created for a defecting Liberal it would have been unethical bordering on the illegal. The problem most people opposing the appointment seem to stem from a lack of understanding of representative democracy and the palimentary system. The solutions proposed (by election) would be worse than the problem of jilted voters who vote for a party instead of their local candidate can imagine. The only way to avoid MPs crossing the floor is to dismantle parliment

Posted by: Joe at February 7, 2006 08:39 PM

---

"Would it be best for Stephen Harper to find an expert on the softwood lumber issue from his own ranks, ranks sorely lacking urban representation by the way?"

Yeah, there sure is a lot of forestry in those urban ridings.

Steve, you and Kate (and Braaten, and Orr, and Phantom Observer etc) are completely wrong on this. Believe it or not, there were those of us who supported the Conservative party because we believed that they would restore some ethics to government. To find, on the very first day in power, that the Conservatives would simply discard accountability (ie the new Minsiter of Public Works) and ethics (correct me if I am wrong, but was not Emerson a part of the government that the Conservatives voted non-confidence against?) is a swift kick in the nuts.

It is precisely this sort of ethical malleability that led to the formation of the Reform party and subsequent decade-long fracture of the right wing in Canada. Could the Conservatives not have lasted longer than a single day before splitting that fracture wide open once again?

Posted by: Ed Minchau at February 7, 2006 08:43 PM

---

Actually Iam far more troubled by the un-elected minister of public works, than Iam about the floor crossing. There is atleast some president for that... THere isnt any president for having an unelected minister in cabinet, that I am aware of...

It certianly isnt what I expected for the first cabinet.

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 09:58 PM

---

You should all take a deep breathe and reflect back on what happened, why, and look at the positive.

Harper got someone who can deliver the softwood deal without the usual 6-month learning curve.

The premier and unions of BC applaud the deal. Therefore, this matter is closed. Harper was sharper than the media.

The Montreal deal is another story. An interim Senator is appointed who will run in the next election after resigning his Senate seat. Charest is against elected Senate right now. The Public Works portfolio is given to Quebecers because Harper trusts that they will handle it honestly. Home run.

Next run for Harper is that Torontonians are, as usual, upset because they don't understand this country like Harper does. As unsophisticated voters (they elected only Dippers and thieves) they will try to show that they are in tune with the rest of the country and give us 20 seats next election.

Hold the course Vaptain Steve. You've not failed us so far.

Posted by: Fiumara at February 7, 2006 11:16 PM

---

Agreed. People are hugely over-reacting to these moves in cabinet. I do have to admit that these moves are not ideal… the optics are not good for sure. But Harper is showing me that he’s more concerned with governing Canada in the best way rather than ensuring the optics always look pretty. He’s not afraid to make the tough decisions. That’s why Harper will make a good PM.

Oh, one other thing... whoever next uses the "Meet the new boss..." quote deserves a smack in the head! STOP WITH THE TRITE UNIMAGINATIVE QUOTES!! THEY MAKE YOU LOOK STUPID!!!

That is all.

Posted by: Jason M at February 7, 2006 11:19 PM

---

My democratic rights were not upheld in Horners decision to cross the floor.

Actually, they were. You voted for Jack Horner, not the Progressive Conservative party. At the next election, you could vote to kick Horner's ass out on the street. At no time were your democratic rights violated under our current system.

If you want to vote for a party instead of a person, there are a variety of PR-based systems which will allow you to do that. There are lots of organizations dedicated to bringing PR to Canada to which you can donate your effort.

Posted by: pheenster at February 8, 2006 01:58 AM

---

Wow. The blogswarm over Harper's appointment of a Senator and the floor crossing has garnished the most posting I've seen in awhile on any topic.

Stepping back from the forest, what can we see?

We got a rep in Vancouver now. Question begs to be asked - do the voters in there feel that way also?

Then what's the idea of appointing a Quebec senate position?

While it may have been a strategic move, I still reserve my feelings about it. Triple E senate? Ah, that's Reform stuff, and maybe I'm showing my colours. Preston Manning could have been one of the great PM's this nation never had. So the appointment to the Senate flies in the face of what a majority of this party was SUPPOSE to mean.

Time will tell.

I got to hand it to Harper, if this works out with softwood and getting Vancouver votes, then he made a slick move.

If it doesn't it will blow up in his face come election time. Remember the PC's went from landslide to almost wipe out, but hey that was Mulroney. Right, and who did the vid-speech after Harper won?

Politics it seems, is dirty. So maybe Harper is playing hard ball with the Liberals. If so, then more the power to him.

If not, look for a Conservative extinction.

Till then, I'm holding my breath and giving the man some room to move.

But please, do something with a farce we call the justice system.

Oh, while saving 1% on GST is nice, gotta have money to do it. So will our Personal Exemption amount come tax time be increased so we can save taxes? I shouldn't mention about UIC, err, EI overtaxation/gouging right?

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax at February 8, 2006 02:49 AM

---

Broken record Dave,

I happen to be a constituent of Myron Thompson's riding, and believe me he is anything but capitulatory.
He will respect the role that he plays, respect the decision of his leader BUT WILL ALWAYS make the will of his constituents known whether it backs the party or not.
He has been representing Wild Rose for many years and has always represented the views of his riding with honesty and integrity. Democracy would be better served if there were more MPs with the courage that he displays.
By the way, he is retiring after this term and has not got his eye on a future cabinet position. If he is appointed a senate position, I am sure it would be by the will of the people of Alberta through an election. Do your research before you cast stones.

Posted by: Jan Schaafsma at February 8, 2006 03:40 AM

---

So Mr. Harper finds himself without a majority and has to compromise on each and every piece of legislation he puts forward.
He has the chance to gain a couple of seats and reduce the amount that he will have to compromise.
By doing this, he also increases the chances for a majority in the next election so that he can truly make all the changes necessary to rescue Canada.
The evil, spineless wimp!
How dare he try to act in the best interests of the country; he was not elected to do this.
Better he act in a totally 'moral'* way.
(moral*- as judged by those who would prefer to have their party die quickly than fight the liberal machine effectively)
This sounds awfully like the reasoning the moonbat left uses.
My simple thinking runs like this.
Winston Churchill had a fight on his hands in WW2.
He had a monster to fight and it was a life or death situation.
There were times when he had to make decisions that would not have been made when at peace in the civilized society he sought to save.
Would you naysayers have driven him from office because he was impure of thought and deed?
I know the situation with Mr. Harper is not the same but do you deny that the liberal threat to Canada has not been real?
Wake up and get with the program....it requires lifting of the head and not looking down one's nose.
WE have a dragon to slay; we do not want it to return.

Posted by: Rich at February 8, 2006 07:57 AM

---

Good points Ed. I wouldn't be too suprised to see a few Tories sit as independents if Harper doesn't get his act together soon:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060208.wxtories08/BNStory/National/home

Posted by: Lew at February 8, 2006 12:17 PM

---

Dave, to relieve your struggle with all this, Fortier was drafted to serve his country.

Harper told Emerson to *remain seated and continue the work you are doing.*

Harper drafted a lot of expertise for our [Canada's] benefit. It's called *keeping the eye on the ball*.

I can tolerate these minor thefts. It's theft that goes beyond 10 $billion of our revenues that tend to annoy me. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 8, 2006 01:17 PM

---

Curtis said:

"Actually Iam far more troubled by the un-elected minister of public works, than Iam about the floor crossing. There is atleast some president for that... THere isnt any president for having an unelected minister in cabinet, that I am aware of...

It certianly isnt what I expected for the first cabinet. "

Check out SDA before commenting. There are "precedents" aplenty.

JCL

Posted by: JCL at February 8, 2006 04:01 PM

---

SDA? Whos that?

I hadnt heard of any examples of an unelected minister before. I like the idea of an unelected cabinet - like the United States has - where people from a variety of backgrounds could run a federal department. Unlike our current condition, where lawyers normally run everything...

Ive heard on the radio this morning, that Emerson's liberal party association wants its money back. About $95000 and change. I can see their point, The partisan donors who gave the money, did so with the expectation of helping a liberal MP be re-elected.

Perhaps that's the penalty for crossing the floor, returning campaign money back to the party that is left behind.

Posted by: Curtis at February 8, 2006 04:39 PM

---

"Though from what I've seen, it seems like small dead animals and Angry in the Great White North are virtually alone."

For what it's worth (ha ha ha, modesty), I'm with you guys.

Posted by: Peter at February 8, 2006 05:45 PM

---

Ok SJ....I'm with you...but one question this brings up.

It seems to me that a lot of moonbat trolls have been hiding behind conservative masks. Pathological nay sayers, finger wagging tongue clucking scolds whose sole purpose is to point and hiss at things they do not approve of.
Are you going to be "Taking Sloppy Conservative Thinking" to task?
Only children live in a world of absolutes.

I can trust Harper to make good decisions and don't need to hear a chorus of ayes or nays punctuating every action taken or word spoken to tell me whether my trust is being abused.

Posted by: PGP at February 8, 2006 08:23 PM

---

Ok SJ....I'm with you.
IT IS TRULY DISSAPOINTING to see the amount of purely spiteful reaction to the Harper appointments.

Pathological nay sayers, finger wagging tongue clucking scolds whose sole purpose is to point and hiss at things they do not approve of.
Only children live in a world of absolutes.

Are you going to be "Taking Sloppy Conservative Thinking" to task?

I can trust Harper to make good decisions and don't need to hear a chorus of ayes or nays punctuating every action taken or word spoken to tell me whether my trust is being abused.

Posted by: PGP at February 8, 2006 08:30 PM

---

As I've said before, you're not alone and by the way, that statement is that "Good is the enemy of the Best." We got the best for Vancouver and Montreal.

Good on Mr. Harper.

Posted by: Pat at February 8, 2006 11:27 PM

---

For now, let's hope Harper employs every legal loophole, every opportunity, every bit of leverage at his disposal to keep the Liberals as disorganized, dazed and confused as possible.

The ends do not justify the means.

Posted by: Sceptic at February 9, 2006 12:32 AM

---

Can this guy really be trusted?

From a CTV article:

Emerson said he originally entered politics at the behest of former prime minister Paul Martin. At that time he was not a Liberal, but decided to enter politics to serve the people of his riding.

He said he would have "absolutely" stayed on in Paul Martin's cabinet if the former PM had been re-elected.

Posted by: sceptic at February 9, 2006 12:43 AM

---

A lot of chatter; a lot of bruised egos; a lot of smugness. Sounds like the office cooler crowd.

I found out a long time ago that "it's hard to soar with eagles when you're working for turkeys". I do not consider Mr Harper a turkey and I look forward to observing and learning from him. He brings more to the table than Chretien and Martin ever could. So give him the chance to better the country and stop criticising every move me makes when you have no idea what his next step is going to be.

We now know he is skilful and keeps us on our toes. The ones most upset are in the MSM and they are the mullahs that keep this thing going - sells papers and helps the Libranos.

Just a point for consideration: the USA with a population of 300M has 15 cabinet ministers (secretaries). We have 1/10th the population and over twice the number of ministers. They bring in the best from the outside to get the job done. We have to choose from what is available internally. Is Harper breaking this mould?

Posted by: Fiumara at February 9, 2006 04:22 AM

---

Unelected member in the cabinet?

Harper is precident setting. Get used to it.
Getting the job done is priority one. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 9, 2006 10:20 AM

---

Now the liberals are saying that Emerson killed a deal on softwood lumber this past fall. If true, it should do more damage to the liberals, than to Emerson, one would think that decision of this magnitude would not be made by 1 person, but by cabinet or the PM....

But do people think that? or would they buy the Emerson sinking the deal?

Posted by: Curtis at February 10, 2006 01:42 AM

---