Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again
1. It looks like Paul is itching for another wrongful dismissal suit:
Or...Lapierre won't have confidence in Pelletier after he gets proper notice. My head is just spinning with all the delayed confidence motions we're seeing in Ottawa these days.
I'll be very curious to see if the voters of Outremont have confidence in Mr. Lapierre following the next election...
2. On a similar note, when did Scott Brison go from bright political star to buffoon? Every day, it's a new mishap with him. A few months ago Brison was seen as a rising star in the Liberal party and one of Paul's best Cabinet Ministers. These days? Uhh...not so much.
3. Dan McTeague wants 50 cent to be banned from Canada. Personally, I'd like to see Dan McTeague banned from Canada.
4. Just so that I don't throw up four anti-Liberal points tonight, what exactly would people like Paul Martin to do on the softwood lumber file? More specifically, what would a Stephen Harper government do that the Liberals haven't done? And please don't tell me this is payback for anti-Americanism in the Liberal Party because I don't buy it.
Here's my prediction:
Today: Opposition leaders blame Liberals for not helping workers hurt by softwood tariffs.
Friday: Opposition leaders attack Liberals for "buying votes" with their aid package for workers hurt by softwood tariffs.
"I don't have confidence in him to chair the board of Via Rail," Transport Minister Jean Lapierre said Tuesday following a cabinet meeting.
Or...Lapierre won't have confidence in Pelletier after he gets proper notice. My head is just spinning with all the delayed confidence motions we're seeing in Ottawa these days.
I'll be very curious to see if the voters of Outremont have confidence in Mr. Lapierre following the next election...
2. On a similar note, when did Scott Brison go from bright political star to buffoon? Every day, it's a new mishap with him. A few months ago Brison was seen as a rising star in the Liberal party and one of Paul's best Cabinet Ministers. These days? Uhh...not so much.
3. Dan McTeague wants 50 cent to be banned from Canada. Personally, I'd like to see Dan McTeague banned from Canada.
4. Just so that I don't throw up four anti-Liberal points tonight, what exactly would people like Paul Martin to do on the softwood lumber file? More specifically, what would a Stephen Harper government do that the Liberals haven't done? And please don't tell me this is payback for anti-Americanism in the Liberal Party because I don't buy it.
Here's my prediction:
Today: Opposition leaders blame Liberals for not helping workers hurt by softwood tariffs.
Friday: Opposition leaders attack Liberals for "buying votes" with their aid package for workers hurt by softwood tariffs.
posted by calgarygrit at
11:29 p.m.
20 Comments:
Question: how much of an imbecile do you have to be to make cabinet in the Martin government?
By
John Murney , at 11:54 p.m.
On a similar note, when did Scott Brison go from bright political star to buffoon? Every day, it's a new mishap with him.
Non story. File it in the rubbish bin along with Carol Jamieson.
By
Robert McClelland, at 12:25 a.m.
"Dan McTeague wants 50 cent to be banned from Canada. Personally, I'd like to see Dan McTeague banned from Canada."
I second that motion.
By
Anonymous, at 4:37 a.m.
Hey C.G. There's more to that Brison Story than the Conservatives want you to hear.
http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/2005/11/brison-attacked-for-refusing-patronage.html
By
Hishighness, at 6:59 a.m.
Gotta love the Three Blind Mice coming out and criticizing the Prime Minister for ineffectiveness in the softwood lumber dispute - "In the end, Paul Martin has really provided nothing but words, speeches and rhetoric," - the very day the US caves to his demands!
They really are quite blind!
TB
Cerberus
By
Ted Betts, at 10:00 a.m.
I'd ban Dan McTeague from Canada for much less than 50 cents.
By
Jaymeister, at 11:39 a.m.
After the election the Liberal Party should really think about renaming itself the Ontiberal Party - in keeping with their regional base. Nothing changes the fact that the only voters that really count are in Ontario. Resonate with Ontiberals and the next election is in the bag.
By
Anonymous, at 11:52 a.m.
Let me say again: just like in the rest of the country, 40% of Ontarians were so disgusted by the process that they didn't vote.
Of the remaining 60%, only about 40% picked the Liberals.
It's only an accident of the first past the post system that this province appears to be a Liberal Bloc. Let's get proportional representation so the true face of Ontario, not to mention all the provinces, can be shown in parliament.
By
James Bow, at 11:55 a.m.
My favourite part of McTeague's asinine comments...
"I don't think people in Toronto or any urban centre need or want to hear Mr. Jackson's message right now,"
Yeah! People here *don't want to hear* it! You'd think that the existence of a sold-out freakin' concert tour would perhaps generate a clue for ol' Danny Boy.
By
Anonymous, at 12:16 p.m.
That's kinda funny... Dan McTeague is one of the only Liberals I can stand! (I voted for him in 1997)
By
Christian Conservative, at 1:43 p.m.
The chances of the Liberal Party accepting proportional representation are slim to none. Why change a system that has served so well? Nice if you're a yappy marginal party like the Cons, dippers and greenies but come on... not going to happen.
By
Anonymous, at 1:50 p.m.
The thing I should of mentioned before is this. If McTeague wanted to promote 50 cents new record in Canada, he should continue. It is comments like this that drive up sales. It is too bad for 50 that McTeague is only a backbencher.
Others have been much luckier. I imagine that the first George Bush gets a Xmas card every year from Ice Tea for helping turn cop killer into a rap anthem. One of these days a politican is going to get wise to this and risk a whole bunch of money on some artist's success before calling for a government crackdown on that artist's work.
By
Anonymous, at 4:19 p.m.
Charles Caccia was right: McTeague should have been booted the second that he went behind Canadians' backs and met with Americans to figure out how to scuttle the marijuana bill. Can you imagine how this guy would act in a closed room on softwood?
Also, interesting to see people go to bat for Martha Stewart. Ah, but she's white...
By
Anonymous, at 8:20 p.m.
Koby,
You think that McTeague and George H and others don't understand that? You don't think that their only aim is to shamelessly suck up to *insert random constituency* by bellowing inconsequential hot air about whatever mildly controversial pop culture icon is hot at the moment? Sorry, that's too limited an explanation. Perhaps an equal aim is to maximize and aggrandize their own personalities and public profiles without actually having to DO anything.
They don't care about that which they attack, they only care about seeming 'pro-active'. Seeming being the key word.
By
Anonymous, at 8:21 p.m.
Is Paul Martin the last of the big spenders?
The taps to the federal treasury have been opened and Paul Martin is spending like there will be no tomorrow. The election writ has not yet been issued and every day Martin announces more goodies costing billions. A few days ago it was tax cuts, today it was $9 billion for military planes and dealing with the residential school issue. Tomorrow, who knows? Strange behavior for a former Finance Minister famed for fiscal responsibility and cutting the deficit. It seems that the Liberals have embarked on a costly initiative to "buy" the impending election. I hope that the majority of voters think twice before "selling" their votes to re-elect a corrupt and tired administration.
By
cardinal47, at 11:46 p.m.
CG - Come don't you think Scott's flippancy is just a little funny? It's arrogant and rude but it almost seems like people like this sort of thing, remember Ralph throwing change at the homeless people? Mabye Scott should come out tommorw with a press release saying he has a drinking problem and his numbers will go up.
As for this:
"After the election the Liberal Party should really think about renaming itself the Ontiberal Party - in keeping with their regional base. Nothing changes the fact that the only voters that really count are in Ontario. Resonate with Ontiberals and the next election is in the bag"
Yes, and the Conservatives should call themselves Albservaties - in keeping with their regional base
Very clever I know.
All the parties have a regional bases of support – it’s a unfortunate side effect of our flawed electoral system. The Liberals are in fact the only party that can boast an elected member in every province. You can't accuse (for instance) the people of Toronto for being blind followers of a single party when they have elected at least one member of every major party over the last decade, while in contrast Calgary (my home) hasn't voted for a non-conservative member since 1969.
I think that's called being 'hypocritical'
By
Anonymous, at 12:28 a.m.
"They don't care about that which they attack, they only care about seeming 'pro-active'. Seeming being the key word."
Of course.
However, you would have a hard time convincing me that such a stunt actually furthers the cause of the Liberal party in anyway. I am also pretty sure McTeague intention was not to become the punch line in some joke, but that is what he has succeded in doing. The Canadian political landscape is different from the US and it is not 1990 anymore. As Marx once said, History repeats itself. It comes first as tradgey the second time as a farce.
The tradgey: However, dumb and transparent Bush, Gore et al's posturing might have seemed, their grandstanding still gained some political capital.
By
Anonymous, at 12:40 a.m.
"After the election the Liberal Party should really think about renaming itself the Ontiberal Party - in keeping with their regional base. Nothing changes the fact that the only voters that really count are in Ontario. Resonate with Ontiberals and the next election is in the bag"
Yes, and the Conservatives should call themselves Albservaties - in keeping with their regional base
Yeah! And the Bloc Quebecois should call themselves... oh yeah, never mind.
By
Anonymous, at 8:56 a.m.
Regarding the "Ontiberal" situation vs. the "Albservities" (really should have come up with something better here, maybe "Conbertans"?). It makes no difference whether Alberta votes period - the point seems to be that Ontario has the voters, Alberta carries little weight in a federal election. I guess this is a western grevience in general. As I've heard said many a time before the election is over before anyone votes west of the Manitoba border.
By
Anonymous, at 11:40 a.m.
Only in a banana republic can someone like McTeague go to the american government to ask it to stop a law that the majority of canadians support (pot decrim) and instead of being tried for treason become a wannabee minister.
Forget that half of canadians support marijuana legalisation, 3/4 support decrim (whatever the term means to you since it has about 4 meaninngs) and oevr 90% support medical marijuana (forget the fact that the government has done everything in its power to stall, derail and get rid of the program that it had to implement so as not to have the courts declare the law illegal), we know very well that no matter waht canadians think, politicans will do what they want (just look at the Bloc mp's who run the old line 'we have to study this more').
What Im talking about is a canadian politician going to a foreign government and asking it to put pressure on our country to derail a bill.
We dont need the Bloc Quebecois to destroy this country, we have enough politicians on both sides who would sell it off so they to can become americans.
The forgotten National Post editorial about this is
Wed, 27 Aug 2003
Source: National Post (Canada)
A DOPEY LOBBY
It is nothing new for Jean Chretien to be feuding with backbenchers. But while the Prime Minister may have himself to blame for some of his deteriorating relations, he appears to have had good cause to blow his top at several of his caucus members last week.
In July, a group of Liberal MPs met with Barry Crane, the U.S. deputy drug czar. The MPs claim the point of the meeting was simply to help them gain an understanding of U.S. concerns over Canada's plan to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. But a Foreign Affairs official who attended and took notes has reported that they used the opportunity to actively lobby the U.S. government to press its objections to the policy change by tying it to trade and border disputes. "All the attendees were highly critical of the proposed cannabis reform bill," the official's memo noted. "The apparent aim of the members of the meeting was to solicit the help of U.S. officials to defeat [it]."
Although some of the MPs have claimed that their intentions have been misreported, at least one -- Brenda Chamberlain -- has admitted not only that she and others asked Mr. Crane to tell the PM and federal bureaucrats about the possibility of border problems if the law passed, but that they asked him to repeat those concerns when he indicated he had already expressed them. And according to reports, Liberal MP Dan McTeague -- who the memo says conveyed "the obvious implication that the only thing that would stop [decriminalization] was U.S. influence" -- gave Mr. Crane's officials a memo listing the bill's flaws.
Assuming the MPs have not been unfairly smeared by these reports, their conduct was inexcusable: Given the damage that has already been wrought against our economy thanks to existing U.S. restrictions on softwood lumber and beef, we hardly need our elected MPs manufacturing yet another problem. Indeed, the backbenchers' spiteful campaign against the government's sensible marijuana reforms contravenes the national interest they were elected to protect.
Somewhere along the way, Ms. Chamberlain, Mr. McTeague and others appear to have lost perspective. As some of Mr. Chretien's toughest critics, their tactics have grown increasingly aggressive over the past couple of years. Ordinarily, that's just fine; given the weak state of the opposition parties, a little friendly fire is a constructive thing. But attempting to turn our neighbours against us represents a step too far.
By
Anonymous, at 11:29 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home