Don't Mind Me, I'm Just the PM
Damn that Paul Wells and his quick posting - I was all set to go off on the ridiculous comments by Paul Martin in today's Globe & Mail when I see he beat me to the punch. The story reads like something out of the Onion:
New Delhi Prime Minister Paul Martin said Tuesday that he did not accept the resignation of Judy Sgro's chief of staff two months ago because it was up to the chief of staff to make his own decision on whether to stay.
The Globe and Mail reported on Monday that members of Mr. Martin's office counseled chief of staff Ihor Wons to stay on the job, despite the fact that he had admitted to creating "an appearance of impropriety" after visiting a strip club to discuss the club owner's plan to bring to Canada 18 strippers. Mr. Martin did not deny that his office may have advised Mr. Wons to stay.
"They seek advice," Mr. Martin said Tuesday. "But the fact is that people are free to make their own decisions, and that's obviously the case for anyone."
This begs a few questions:
1. Can anyone resign? I mean, Martin's logic sets up a paradox where they can't even tender their own resignation since he's decided that it's up to them, but won't allow them to resign, because it's up to them.
2. Why did he allow Judy Sgro to resign? Isn't it her decision too?
3. Will we ever see a staffer resign during the Martin years/months is power? If so, how will that situation differ from this one?
4. Is this all the PMO is now? An advice machine? People have accused the PMO of controlling all aspects of government in the past and now we're supposed to believe it's been run over by Anne Landers?
5. Does Martin expect people to believe that he has no say in what his Cabinet members do and will never interfere in their decisions?
6. What idiot in the PMO wrote up Martin's statement on this? And if the idiot who did ever wants to resign, would he or she be allowed to?
Damn that Paul Wells and his quick posting - I was all set to go off on the ridiculous comments by Paul Martin in today's Globe & Mail when I see he beat me to the punch. The story reads like something out of the Onion:
New Delhi Prime Minister Paul Martin said Tuesday that he did not accept the resignation of Judy Sgro's chief of staff two months ago because it was up to the chief of staff to make his own decision on whether to stay.
The Globe and Mail reported on Monday that members of Mr. Martin's office counseled chief of staff Ihor Wons to stay on the job, despite the fact that he had admitted to creating "an appearance of impropriety" after visiting a strip club to discuss the club owner's plan to bring to Canada 18 strippers. Mr. Martin did not deny that his office may have advised Mr. Wons to stay.
"They seek advice," Mr. Martin said Tuesday. "But the fact is that people are free to make their own decisions, and that's obviously the case for anyone."
This begs a few questions:
1. Can anyone resign? I mean, Martin's logic sets up a paradox where they can't even tender their own resignation since he's decided that it's up to them, but won't allow them to resign, because it's up to them.
2. Why did he allow Judy Sgro to resign? Isn't it her decision too?
3. Will we ever see a staffer resign during the Martin years/months is power? If so, how will that situation differ from this one?
4. Is this all the PMO is now? An advice machine? People have accused the PMO of controlling all aspects of government in the past and now we're supposed to believe it's been run over by Anne Landers?
5. Does Martin expect people to believe that he has no say in what his Cabinet members do and will never interfere in their decisions?
6. What idiot in the PMO wrote up Martin's statement on this? And if the idiot who did ever wants to resign, would he or she be allowed to?
posted by calgarygrit at
1:13 p.m.
2 Comments:
Excellent points.. but I dont see how this posting which more or less mocks Martin's stand on this issue is any different from the (now-deleted) posting mocking the Calgary bishop's stand on gays..
Not trying to stir up trouble.. I just dont see how 1 is any different from the other.. other then you're parodying 1 post and using a traditional critique to bash the other.
By
Oxford County Liberals, at 6:19 p.m.
Explain to us ignorant masses how the other statement was defamatory.. it just took a look at another statement in the Bible and used the Bishop's statement as an example of how some people can totally warp things out of that Good Book.
If our host here had written a statement criticizng the Bishop,.. and then gave the example that he did in traditional writing style to hilight how ridiculous it is.. I fail to see how it defames him... yet it was written in parody style.. and that makes a difference?
Rick Mercer.. watch out
By
Oxford County Liberals, at 6:08 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home