Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Paradis Found

'Tis the season to shuffle, and Harper is set to do the dance tomorrow. According to the Globe, Emerson will stay in Foreign Affairs (take a bow, the 29% of you who called it) - if you can't find a competent Conservative, might as well turn to a Liberal.

It sounds like Christian Paradis, who I would have a hard time picking out of a lineup, gets promoted to public works, proving the age-old adage "good things come to those who do not date Julie Couillard". That means Senator Fortier replaces Emerson in international trade.

Should there be any surprises tomorrow (Anders to Foreign Affairs pleeeeeeease!), I'll be sure to post them, but after a glitzy scandal, I think a low key shuffle like this is probably what Harper is looking for.


UPDATE: High of 28 in Ottawa today, but I'm expecting we won't be seeing much skin at this swearing in. If we do, you can bet Kady will have the full details in her live blog of the events.

And it appears James Moore is finally getting into Cabinet as a Secretary of State, after being forced to grin and bear it on the Cadman file for months. Certainly a well deserved, and somewhat belated, appointment.

Labels: , ,

posted by calgarygrit at 10:54 p.m.

30 Comments:

  • Please, please, please. Appoint Anders to Foreign Affairs and Petit to International Trade. The one who said that the money spent on the gun registry should be used to prevent immigrants from causing rampage at Dawson College.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:39 p.m.  

  • “...if you can't find a competent Conservative, might as well turn to a Liberal.”

    Hang on!

    This fellow emerson is not a Liberal. He's a mercenary. He defected to the CPC after it won.

    The way he defected was a disgrace. He showed up at the swearing ceremony without informing Paul Martin. Then, he refused to meet with the Liberal activists in his constituency who had helped him get elected.

    This resulted in several months of protest and demonstrations against him. He was heckled at public events.

    Pretty sad representative of Canada. Other governments have to be wondering what's going on. There was minuscule McKay. Then, playboy Bernier. Now, this?

    Why is the conservative government so weak? Are their best minds secluded at the Frasier Institute.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 1:22 a.m.  

  • hey, they got elected.

    didn't stop Belinda, or Doc Martin from crossing the floor, etc.

    get over it.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 1:47 p.m.  

  • Good for Moore. Even though he's looked dumb on the Cadman file, everyone in Ottawa seems to think he's a bright light in an otherwise dim caucus.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:01 p.m.  

  • I don't know much about Paradis, but given the track record of rookie Quebec MPs in cabinet handling large and sensitive departments, Paradis' appointment apparently shows Harper didn't learn his lesson from Mad Max.

    By Blogger sir john a., at 5:18 p.m.  

  • fellow emerson is not a Liberal. He's a mercenary. He defected to the CPC after it won.

    Belinda, Brison, The Garth, Bob Rae, etc.

    Those don't bother you, not even a little? Each party defection is annoying, but if both sides are playing the same game, then apparently it's within the "rules".

    Don't be Liberocritical.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 7:13 p.m.  

  • I am happy to hear that do-nothing know-nothing Jamie Rajotte did not get into cabinet.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:54 p.m.  

  • “didn't stop Belinda, or Doc Martin from crossing the floor, etc.”

    I don't think that you can compare Belinda with emerson. You should consider the facts before you offer an opinion. From wikipedia,

    “Her decision to leave the Conservative Party came after an uneasy relationship with Stephen Harper. In a press conference after leaving the party, she said that Harper was not sensitive to the needs of all parts of the country, and was jeopardizing national unity by allying himself with the Bloc Québécois to bring down the government.[15] She also stated that the party was too focused on Western Canada and "Western alienation" instead of having broader focus. Her disdain for Harper was obvious in her press conference with Martin; she never once referred to him by name, only as "the leader of the Conservative Party."

    Anyway, she conducted herself properly with her voters, and won re-election in 2006. Very different from emerson who seems to be cut from the same cloth as harper (in-out and Cadscam).

    By Blogger JimTan, at 10:07 p.m.  

  • Jimtan,

    You're being a little naive. What did you expect Stronach to say? "Well, Martin offered me a cabinet position to cross the floor, so..." Of course not.

    Instead, she made up some political BS, so that when future floor-crossers are compared to her, people will quote her Wikipedia article and claim there are huge differences between her and said floor crosser.

    By Blogger Mike514, at 10:58 p.m.  

  • “You're being a little naive. What did you expect Stronach to say? "Well, Martin offered me a cabinet position to cross the floor, so..." Of course not.

    Dear Mike,

    It has been proven in the Gurwal Singh case that Martin and associates did not make a specific offer. So, you should provide evidence that Martin made an inducement to Belinda.

    It is easy to commit slander online. Can you behave in an honourable and careful way? That is, like an adult?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 11:58 p.m.  

  • "It has been proven ..."

    All that was proven was that what was caught on tape was open to interpretation. There is no proof of the negative, and we all have our own opinions of those matters.

    But do you suggest that the Cabinet appointment came as a complete shock to Ms. Stronach after within hours after she had publicly announced that she was crossing the floor from the Party she had sought to lead mere months before? That it was not discussed before? That seems to be what you would require all Canadians to believe. Where is your evidence that the immediate appointment to Cabinet was a surprise? I didn't notice any expressions of disbelief on her part.

    A key difference with the Emerson scenario is found in the non-confidence votes prior to one crossing, an election as an MP preceding the other. Granted, some people think it's the Party, not the candidate standing on the ballot to serve Canada, but that debate will continoe another year.

    By Blogger Paul, at 1:04 a.m.  

  • “All that was proven was that what was caught on tape was open to interpretation. There is no proof of the negative, and we all have our own opinions of those matters.

    This is what I recall. Sorry to contradict you.

    “As I recall it, Grewal initially released 9 minutes of the tapes running four hours. He had not included the part where he asked explicitly for benefits. Nor the part where Martin’s COS (Tim Murphy) said that no one would make promises to Gurwal. The game was up once the tape was heard in its entirety.”

    By Blogger JimTan, at 1:31 a.m.  

  • Now, folks, you are forgetting a key part of jimtan's argument. I don't fault you for missing it, because it is unstated, but, once revealed you will surely agree that he is always right.

    You may ask why jimtan is against every single thing Harper does - without fail (even if he is being hypocritical, or going against other things he has said previously) - is jimtan a cyborg made from Pierre Trudeau's sperm and John Turnbot (a robot built by the Liberals in the 80's because winning elections was getting old)? We don't know. He just won't say.

    But what is clear is that Stephen Harper is actually Hitler. Proof? Hitler "died" on April 30th. Stephen Harper was "born" on April 30th. The similarities don't stop there, either. Hitler invaded Poland. Harper targets ethnic voters according to the Globe and Mail. Stephen Harper likes cats. This cat looks like Hitler:
    http://fhwang.net/img/hitler_cat.jpg
    Hitler was on the cover of Time magazine in 1938. Harper was on Time Magazine in 2006.
    http://www.openparenthesis.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/time_large.jpg
    Harper's slogan in 2006 was "stand up for Canada". Hitler's slogan in 1933 was also "stand up for Canada". Also, Hitler rewarded Von Papen (who has been alleged with trying to blow up the Welland Canal) with the vice-chancellor position in exchange for floor-crossing, just like David Emerson.

    Some may say "oh why can't you just sweat the small stuff, jimtan" - but only jimtan sticks to his guns and stands up for justice.

    Also, for the purposes of avoiding Godwin's law, replace all references to you know who with Stalin.

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 3:35 a.m.  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 11:27 a.m.  

  • “Some may say "oh why can't you just sweat the small stuff, jimtan”

    It's a slippery slope when you get sloppy and dishonest. Look at politicians like chretien, harper and clinton.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 11:41 a.m.  

  • If Harper's legacy is even close to that of Chretien or Clinton, I would think he is a success - and so will posterity.

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 3:56 p.m.  

  • Hoser,
    That Hitler comparison post was stinking hilarious. No other way to describe it. Thanks for the laughs.

    By Blogger Mike514, at 7:01 p.m.  

  • It is easy to commit slander online. Can you behave in an honourable and careful way? That is, like an adult?

    Trying to compare a lightweight like Stronach with Emerson might be consider slanderous by some.

    You might have had a better comparison with Brison. At least he was a serious politician, until he became the mouthpiece for sponsorship in QP.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 7:04 p.m.  

  • “If Harper's legacy is even close to that of Chretien or Clinton”

    I think that harper's legacy will be the same as clinton. That is, not a success! You really can't compare harper with chretien.

    “Trying to compare a lightweight like Stronach with Emerson might be consider slanderous by some”

    Yah! Too bad Stronach didn't sell out the BC lumber exporters.

    The Canadian softwood exporters had repeatedly won the trade dispute in NAFTA tribunals. Emerson imposed a settlement vastly favourable to the Americans, who got to keep $2b of our money. The Americans also got quotas and import taxes in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

    How did emerson manage it? He threatened Canadians producers who were suing the Americans. He said that his government would no longer supporter the exporters if they refused to settle on his terms.

    Yes! Dear emerson is a true heavyweight and friend of Canadians.

    P.S. Mobius, please let me know when you finally figure out what slander means.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 9:43 p.m.  

  • For starters, it means spoken words, not written text.

    PS- Thanks to hosertohoosier for the best laugh I've had all day.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:31 p.m.  

  • “For starters, it means spoken words, not written text”

    Silly! That's not what I meant.

    I may insult X by comparing him to Y. It's a matter of opinion. Defamation occurs when I insult someone by using incorrect facts. For example, harper may be an acolyte of Bush/Cheney. I would be going too far to say that harper is part of the 5th Column in Canada.

    In these forums, there are people who shoot from the hip without regard for the facts or good manners. I would consider their offence to be closer to that of slander rather than deliberate acts of libel. Of course, they may be trolls! That is a separate matter altogether.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 1:52 a.m.  

  • The Canadian softwood exporters had repeatedly won the trade dispute in NAFTA tribunals.

    ...and the Liberal government got what out of that?

    Nice deflection, though.

    If you want to defend the Stronach defection, on the eve of a confidence vote, go ahead, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 9:16 p.m.  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 10:37 p.m.  

  • “...and the Liberal government got what out of that?”

    The Liberal government did its duty. It fought for us in the tribunals of the WTO and NAFTA. Step by step over the years towards a conclusion. Was that wrong?

    We're arguing because of our different natures. I oppose emerson because of the way he treated his boss and voters, and his unfair treatment of our exporters. You hate Belinda because she defected at an inopportune moment.

    This is politics. Cadman voted for the Liberals as an independent. Garth Turner joined the Liberals after being expelled. Wajid Khan defected after an argument with dion.

    These things happen in politics because alliances shift and relationships deteriorate. Do you blame Belinda for defecting, or harper for losing her, or Martin because he welcomed her with open arms?

    The important thing is your professionalism. You decide on what you want to do, and you should answer for it. On a personal level, how do you treat the truth, and the people around you?

    On professionalism, emerson fails abysmally. Would you want to work with him? However, Belinda had the guts to face her voters and won by a bigger margin.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 11:40 p.m.  

  • You hate Belinda because she defected at an inopportune moment.

    Don't put words in my mouth, please. I don't hate Belinda at all. I simply find comparisons of Emerson to her annoying, because he had some substance, where she was an empty pants-suit who defected for personal benefit.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 7:26 p.m.  

  • Do you blame Belinda for defecting, or harper for losing her, or Martin because he welcomed her with open arms?

    I blame them both for further lowering the tone and practice of politics. A defection to buy a confidence vote is about as low as it gets.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 7:29 p.m.  

  • “I don't hate Belinda at all. I simply find comparisons of Emerson to her annoying, because he had some substance, where she was an empty pants-suit who defected for personal benefit.”

    Are you being rational?

    Belinda gives ideological, political and interpersonal reasons for her defection. You claim that she had ulterior motives. Where is your evidence?

    Let's review the facts. She had been interested in the conservative cause as early as 2000. In 2003, she was one of supporters of the Alliance/Tory merger. She ran as a conservative in 2004 and accepted a shadow cabinet position.

    Why would she bother to go to all that trouble if she wasn't genuine? She could have gotten a junior cabinet position if she had joined chretien's majority government. Why join the Liberals when they were on the edge of the cliff?

    Yes, she took the opportunity to exact revenge on harper during the confidence vote. Just as Couillard took revenge on Bernier. But, this is an issue as old as time.

    So, what is the emotion you feel towards Belinda if you're not being rational?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 12:23 a.m.  

  • Are you being rational?

    Yes, quite.

    Sorry, I can't take you seriously any more.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 4:57 p.m.  

  • "Yes, quite."

    But, where's the evidence?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 5:10 p.m.  

  • This won't really have success, I believe this way.

    By Anonymous yatesspain.blogspot.com, at 4:17 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home