Broken Compass
Main Entry: moral compass
Part of Speech: n
Definition: anything which serves to guide a person's decisions based on morals or virtues
Example: Hopefully, the lawyer has a moral compass.
The latest chapter in the Brian Mulroney saga has Stephen Harper attacking Michael Ignatieff for lacking a "moral compass". I'm not completely sure I follow Harper's logic but here's what he said:
“Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberal Party, when this matter first broke, were practically demanding that I throw Mr. Mulroney in prison without a trial. Now they're out there pretending that somehow they're his best friends and they don't agree with any of this. I think what Canadians will see is when it comes to a very difficult issue of government conduct and government ethics, this government has behaved responsibly and the other party, the other leader, has absolutely no moral compass.”
Now, I can think of a few possible meanings to what Harper is saying here:
1. Anyone who defends Brian Mulroney or calls him on his birthday has no moral compass. On that point, who among us can argue?
2. Trying to create internal divisions in another party would only be done by a sick individual lacking a moral compass.
3. Calling an inquiry that might potentially embarrass a former Prime Minister of one's own party is a sign of a strong moral compass.
4. Conservative research has found that Michael Ignatieff enjoys torturing puppies. And Brian Mulroney loves to watch.
Then again, maybe I'm missing something in Harper's argument.
In fairness, there's probably some truth that the Liberals have spun around a bit on the Mulroney issue, but it's not like Harper has been Mr. Consistency on this either.
Labels: Ben Mulroney's father, Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper
posted by calgarygrit at
6:41 p.m.
20 Comments:
"In fairness, there's probably some truth that the Liberals have spun around a bit on the Mulroney issue"
Um, make that on every issue and you have a good point.
I can't stand Harper but he is just stating the all too obvious truth on this one.
By
Anonymous, at 6:54 p.m.
The Liberals and the MSM are so trying to spin this as Harper being vindictive that it is going to blow up in their faces.
Do you think that the CPC didn't archive all the footaage of the Libs and MSM calling for blood and accusing Harper of being in bed with corrupt Mulroney.
People aren't stupid and this is going to backfire big time
By
sor, at 7:44 p.m.
Mulroney support is not exactly a winning issue, at least to any of us around during his government.
It should make for some interesting quotes during the next campaign, though.
By
Möbius, at 7:46 p.m.
Harper makes a good point for a change. I really don't get the Ignatieff love-in for Mulroney, not that it is that surprising(he was a big Thatcher fan too) but you'd think that would be the kind of thing he would be smart enough to keep to himself.
By
Anonymous, at 8:06 p.m.
I sort of thought Iggy calling Brian on his b-day was a quaint return to that old fashioned protocol that used to exist in days gone by between political rivals where one lays down arms and shows civility and or makes a "show of respect" on certain occasions. Harper has never adhered to any traditional protocol since in office and has proven himself time and again to be petty and small-minded. For those calling Iggy's birthday greeting an act of hypocrisy, you have to remember it's the same type of antiquated and illogical behaviour as offering respect to a vanquished enemy on the battlefield right before you violently lop his head off with a rusty broadsword.
By
Marcus, at 8:06 p.m.
Except, as a political move, it's extremely stupid. It sure doesn't make me like Iggy more than I did before.
Sure, give him a birthday call, just don't try to make it a slap in the face for the CPC. That's just transparently dumb. He helped reduce the party to 2 seats.
By
Möbius, at 8:15 p.m.
I do like the idea of politicians showing some respect for the office of Prime Minister. I've always admired the way US politicians can do that - even ones who fought elections against each other show each other a lot of respect in retirement.
But, yeah, I'm not really sure I fully understand Ignatieff's tactics here - it's not like Brian Mulroney is the most popular man in Canada.
At the same time, I think Harper over-reacted in response. I don't particularly see how this is a moral or ethical issue.
By
calgarygrit, at 8:29 p.m.
Hello - has Canada gotten so low that a former PM can't be acknowledged in any way? Take a look at the US - former presidents help each other out. They do charities together and yet, they attack each other's ideology.
Geez, the Americans show more class than we do.
Much ado about nothing, again.
Ah, Harper is one to yell out someone's moral compass - when he gets one, then he can say something.
By
Anonymous, at 11:03 p.m.
Well, you just got Harper to spill the beans on the talking points he'll be levelling against Iggy.
It's not "not a leader". It's not even "not a Canadian". It's "not going to take a stand." They'll claim he'll do and say anything if the polls tell him to, and that he has no convictions. They're going to try to rally their supporters while doing what they can to keep the disaffected liberal base at home.
(And I gotta say, praising Mulroney to score a cheap political point ain't helping the Iggman's case on that front. Mulroney? Really? Isn't he roughly as popular as chlamydia in Canada?)
By
Demosthenes, at 11:04 p.m.
You gotta love this continuing soap opera of childish antics that is our political system.
All the more reason to say no to government and work towards Small Government, preferably one also with just skeleton-staffed HoC.
By
Werner Patels, at 11:38 p.m.
Interesting twist on what appeared to be about Harper's cold and dishonest attempt to diss and defrock Mulroney from the CON trenches (who called who for tips on Quebec a few years ago? We knew all about Mulroney's troubles then, too)... Quite deft of Harper to get his army of naysaying nabobs to hit the reply button here and about to funnel the issue into a 'Ignatieff's man-crush on Mulroney' thing. Who's buying it?
By
burlivespipe, at 3:15 a.m.
I don't know how incredibly comfortable I am with Ignatieff warming up to Brian Mulroney; it's not like Mulroney's machine will opt to help us win the next election.
Also, it does kind of smell a bit of opportunism, although it's likely just Iggy genuinely being respectful to a man who, like him or not, brought his party to the largest majority government in Canadian history.
Over all, Harper is showing his true colours in all of this.
By
Brian A, at 7:55 a.m.
In fairness, Harper said that the Liberal party and their leader had no moral compass. Which is very probably correct.
He DIDN'T say that:
- He does have a moral compass
- The government has a moral compass
- Liberal party members lack a moral compass.
All of which would be incorrect, had he said them. But he didn't.
By
Robert Vollman, at 10:09 a.m.
"Liberal Moral Compass"
Filed under "Brown Envelopes"
Cross filed under "Oxymoron"
By
Anonymous, at 2:54 p.m.
It's "not going to take a stand." They'll claim he'll do and say anything if the polls tell him to, and that he has no convictions.
Igntieff talked with conviction before politics, but now I don't see much stand in the guy anymore, to be honest. I totally expect Harper will make this the negative Iggy issue. MI should focus on changing this perception with some of his academic-era conviction pronto.
By
Jason Bo Green, at 5:35 p.m.
Maybe talking Mulroney into becoming a Liberal is the LPOC's Plan B?
It's not that they'd let the support base or members in on such a fine idea or anything.
But it sure has merit. Rae's Iggy's problem and just look what Rae's done to the GM pensions in Ontario.
You've bagged an former NDP leader..how about a PC ex-PM to complete the set?
By
Anonymous, at 5:38 p.m.
"Quite deft of Harper to get his army of naysaying nabobs to hit the reply button here and about to funnel the issue into a 'Ignatieff's man-crush on Mulroney' thing. Who's buying it?"
Yeah right, its only "Harper's army of naysaying nabobs" who've noticed that Ignatieff: doesn't lose any sleep over war crimes, loved the Iraq war before it went south, doesn't advocate torture just thinks its advocates deserve more credit, champions a carbon tax only to run from it when he becomes leader, thinks he can suck up to oil companies while claiming to be an environmentalist, signs his name in support of a coalition before deep-sixing it, wants to ban asbestos at noon but changes his mind by 2, promises to vote down a 3 billion dollar slush fund before voting for it, ect...
Your paranoid perspective is the kind of arrogance we've come to expect from Liberals and I wouldn't vote for Stephen Harper if you went Guantanamo on me. That doesn't mean a broken clock doesn't ever get the time right. Canadians aren't as stupid as Liberals like to think. To me it looks like the party has learned absolutely nothing over the last few years except to keep its membership even more powerless and out of the loop than before.
By
Anonymous, at 7:33 p.m.
Suggesting that people have no moral compass because they are Liberals, Conservatives, etc. is pretty pathetic folks. Maybe blogcommenters have no moral compass.
By
John D, at 11:24 a.m.
I wonder how many people with criminal records have, or are in the process of renewing, a membership in the Conservative Party? Should a special list be drafted to explain that they are no longer members?
By
Anonymous, at 4:22 p.m.
Iggy didn't drain his own mother's retirement funds. Both want Republicans and Israelis to max out the innocent Lebanon and Iraqi bodycount.
But S.Harper successfully spun among the best possible use of Canadian taxpayer dollars, as among the worst possible use of Canadian taxpayer dollars.
Only one of Harper and Iggy have ruined the concept of Canada in my eyes and only one of them has left me hating myself for bringing about another Holocaust by being Canadian.
By
Phillip Huggan, at 6:17 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home