It is simply unbelievable that this man is using taxpayer money to travel around Manitoba so he can ask people if they would support him in a leadership bid. I'm not surprised about Brian Porkister, after all this is the man who is going to potentially create a useless by-election if he chooses to run which is looking more and more likely.
Then the Ultimate Hypocrisy comes in the form of none other then Tratitor in Command David Emerson.
There are simply two words I could use to describe his response: Holy Shit! Just simply astounding, I think the funniest quote of this story was this.
"I'm not opposed to a byelection,'' he (Emerson) said Monday during an appearance on Vancouver radio station CKNW's Bill Good open-line show. "All I'm saying is let's have a set of rules that applies to everyone.
Well then Mr. Emerson if you don't oppose a by-election how about you do what nearly 71% of Canadians want you to do and that is resign and face a by-election.
I should also point out David Emerson didn't support the Preston/Guergis Anti-Floor Crossing Bill when it came out, so the sheer fact he's supporting it now is completely hypocritical.
But you want to know what really angers me? It's this horse shit that people like Andrew Coyne talk about saying that we should move on from David Emerson. I kindly extend my middle finger to Mr. Coyne and say, Hell no. This is not over until it is over and if Andrew Coyne thinks he's just going to get away with something like this then he's damn wrong.
So Bloggers, I'm asking you. Keep the Emerson story in the spotlight, this man doesn't deserve a break at all.
3 comments:
Hey... take a closer look at Coyne's website.
He has just spent A WEEK explaining in NUMEROUS posts that he is TOTALLY AGAINST what Harper and Emerson have done.
They are "moving on" on that particular blog after having spent SEVEN DAYS talking about it ENDLESSLY with a number of clearly anti-Emerson defection postings by Mr. Coyne and OVER A THOUSAND comments on those postings.
Coyne is on YOUR side.
Try READING that which you link to.
-Bryce
.
Wow,
You really shot yourself in the foot by challenging Coyne's view on Emerson. As Bryce said, the point of the post to which you linked was to fire off one more salvo regarding Coyne's strong objection to the Emerson nomination on ethical grounds.
You're in way over your head if you can't be bothered to read the more articulate defenses of your own position.
Steel Stringbean
Who shall guard the guards?
Clearly something stinks in Denmark (on the Rideau), and the stench emanates from both the former governing party and the current one. The average citizen reads or hears about the shenanigans and shakes his or her head, disbelievingly.
There are two issues: (1) Whether we need an ethics commissioner to keep Parliamentarians on the straight and narrow and if so what kind of commissioner with what kind of powers. (2) Should the Emerson-Harper deal be investigated and should Harper cooperate with the ethics commissioner.
In my view the answer in both cases is Yes.
Yes to a properly constituted Ethics Commissioner, appointed as a member of the civil service, with a legislated independent mandate, and an a mandate to be impartial.
Yes to Harper and Emerson cooperating with the Ethics Commissioner.
Stephen Harper campaigned on a platform of ethics, as Mr Clean, bringing a new broom to the capital city. He won a narrow victory. Now it is time for him to govern in a clean and ethical manner. By doing these two things – passing legislation for an independent ethics commissioner, and cooperating re the Emerson walkabout – he will be acting in accordance with promises made before the election.
By not doing these two things, he will be breaking promises made to the voters.
It is as simple as that, and no contortions of logic an obscure this moral simplicity.
Post a Comment