The Chuck Cadman Merged Thread

[I_am_John_Galt]

obviously i disagree..

It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing; it is a simple statement of fact!  :

Let me put it this way: if I decide to buy a car tomorrow, does that mean the taxpayer has an additional cost to bear?

 

[RangerRay]

We may be funding the parties (which I don't think we should be doing), however the parties will be receiving the same amount of funding with the lawsuit as they were before the lawsuit (until after the next election).

Aden is right.  We are not anymore on the hook as we were before.

 

[aesop081]

Except Dion is principled enough

If Dion was "principled enough" he would not have agressively abstained from Confidence votes. He would have voted against the Afghanistan mission extension and against the budget. If he had done that he would have been "principled enough" because he said he would vote against them and stated why he would do so. He was not 'principled enough" to put his money where his mouth is.

I would have at least respected that

 

[stegner]

Dude.  Harper did the same when he was in opposition.  That's what I am saying.  Stop picking on Dion for doing the same things that Harper did when he was in opposition. 

 

[sgf]

selective memory

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Dude.  Harper did the same when he was in opposition.  That's what I am saying.  Stop picking on Dion for doing the same things that Harper did when he was in opposition. 

This is what drives me nuts about Liberals (and why I cannot bring myself to trust them even when they say things that I agree with): on the one hand you are trying to tell us that Harper (in opposition) was negligent and lazy, but on the other he was working so hard to defeat the government that he went so far as to bribe a sitting MP (in an incomprehensibly illogical way).  There's no sense of direction or purpose (or God forbid, any notion of what might be good for the country): the Party's raison d'etre seems to amount to little more than endless mudslinging* hoping that eventually something is going to stick.

*while hypocritically claiming to be victim of same

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

  Stop picking on Dion for doing the same things that Harper did when he was in opposition.   

So its been done before is now a proper excuse for a course of action.......ya got kids by chance?

 

[stegner]

was negligent and lazy

Where did I say that?  Nowhere.  Don't editorialize things that have not been said.  Harper did everything in his power to get into power when he opposition leader.  Did it matter if he got in bed with the NDP and the Bloc and formed a "co-opposition"?  No.  Did it matter that he tried to involve Governor General Clarkson to do his dirty work for him? No.  Did it matter that he had Parliament adjourned earlier on a daily basis for a week?  No.  Did he abstain from votes? Yes.  Did he say things about the Liberals for which he had no evidence?  Yes. 

There's no sense of direction or purpose (or God forbid, any notion of what might be good for the country): the Party's raison d'etre seems to amount to little more than endless mudslinging* hoping that eventually something is going to stick.

So the Conservatives blaming everything on the Liberals is fine.  How many times do they bring up the Liberals did nothing for 13 years.  Technically, that is libel too.  Do the Liberals sue?  No.

My point is that there is no real difference in politicians.  There are some great Conservative MP's and there are some really bad Libeal ones and vice versa.  People are people, irrespective of political stripe.  Harper is no more clean than Martin, Chretien and Mulroney.  You don't get into power being nice.  My point is that by suing, Harper is claiming a moral superiority to which he is not entitled too.  He is just of guilty of going after the Liberals wrongfully and they are after him  Being part of one political party does not guarantee any superiority whatsoever.  A politician is a politician. 

So its been done before is now a proper excuse for a course of action.......ya got kids by chance?

No I don't but I can appreciate that as a parent of several children one may hear this sort of argument on a regular basis: "But he did it-so why can't I?" 

 

[armyvern]

When one chooses to speak outside of their Parliamentary priveledge -- one is not immune ... rather stupid.

Perhaps that's the difference? No moral superiority required --- just law (and that is why one can do it and the other can't).

 

[aesop081]

selective memory

My memory is far from selective.

Thanks for your concern though, i stopped using aluminium cups years ago.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
So the Conservatives blaming everything on the Liberals is fine.  How many times do they bring up the Liberals did nothing for 13 years.  Technically, that is libel too.  Do the Liberals sue?  No.
...

No it isn't; it is, in fact, just part of the acceptable part of the political discourse. Had the Conservatives called any Liberal a liar or a crook - accused someone of offering a bribe, for example - then that would have been unacceptable and the Speaker would have demanded a retraction or expelled the offending member from the House. That's why the Liberals didn't sue: there was never any libel.

The Liberal website, in the opinion of Mr. Harper's lawyers anyway, libels him because it does accuse him of offering a bribe, it calls him a crook. He has no choice but to sue; to do anything else is to implicitly accept that there is a shred of truth in the Liberals' accusations.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Where did I say that?  Nowhere.  Don't editorialize things that have not been said.  Harper did everything in his power to get into power when he opposition leader.  Did it matter if he got in bed with the NDP and the Bloc and formed a "co-opposition"?  No.  Did it matter that he tried to involve Governor General Clarkson to do his dirty work for him? No.  Did it matter that he had Parliament adjourned earlier on a daily basis for a week?  No.  Did he abstain from votes? Yes.  Did he say things about the Liberals for which he had no evidence?  Yes. 

So the Conservatives blaming everything on the Liberals is fine.  How many times do they bring up the Liberals did nothing for 13 years.  Technically, that is libel too.  Do the Liberals sue?  No.

My point is that there is no real difference in politicians.  There are some great Conservative MP's and there are some really bad Libeal ones and vice versa.  People are people, irrespective of political stripe.  Harper is no more clean than Martin, Chretien and Mulroney.  You don't get into power being nice.  My point is that by suing, Harper is claiming a moral superiority to which he is not entitled too.  He is just of guilty of going after the Liberals wrongfully and they are after him  Being part of one political party does not guarantee any superiority whatsoever.  A politician is a politician. 

No I don't but I can appreciate that as a parent of several children one may hear this sort of argument on a regular basis: "But he did it-so why can't I?" 

Continually abstaining from votes and refusing to engage in actual debate is, as the official Opposition, negligent.  Using libel and slander instead of principled debate is lazy.  There seems to be a lot of legal-minded people (of which I am not one) who seem to think that Harper's suit has some merit: the facts contradict your assertions and you continue to espouse them.  You defend everything Liberal, right or wrong, and when confronted with the irrefutable, digress into half-baked "Harper is/was just as bad" ad hominems.  I guess that what blind faith is all about, eh?  People are people, but not all people have a single-minded lust for power for its own sake (although if you run in Liberal circles, you could be forgiven for thinking that!).

Just once I would like to see a Liberal who used the good of the country , rather than the Party, as the acid test of wrong and right.

 

[stegner]

Continually abstaining from votes and refusing to engage in actual debate is, as the official Opposition, negligent.  Using libel and slander instead of principled debate is lazy.  There seems to be a lot of legal-minded people (of which I am not one) who seem to think that Harper's suit has some merit: the facts contradict your assertions and you continue to espouse them.  You defend everything Liberal, right or wrong, and when confronted with the irrefutable, digress into half-baked "Harper is/was just as bad" ad hominems.  I guess that what blind faith is all about, eh?  People are people, but not all people have a single-minded lust for power for its own sake (although if you run in Liberal circles, you could be forgiven for thinking that!).

Just once I would like to see a Liberal who used the good of the country , rather than the Party, as the acid test of wrong and right.

I think you read my post again especially the bold part bcause you missed out on some things that address what you have noted.  You know the part where I talk about how some Liberals are bad and some Conservatives are good.  I am willing to examine the Liberals critically.  I have never said I would blindly follow Liberals and I challenge you to find otherwise.  Heck my favorite Prime Minister is John Diefenbaker and certainly not that son of a gun Trudeau.  Chretien did some really dumb things-but he did some things not too bad.  Martin simply dithered too much-though I think he was well intentioned.  He also did the CF a great service by advising in the GG to appoint Gen. Rick Hillier as CDS.  You have provided absolutely nothing that is irrefutabable and neither have I.  I am happy to debate logical arguments that are supported by evidence and I imagine you are too so let's keep it at that and leave the ad hominems out of it.  If you want to make a point or refute my point please do use evidence and not vague accusations of people who do not agree with you as being "half-baked."  If we are so"half-baked" there must be ample evidence to support this-so use it and not rhetoric.  And by way all politicians have a single-minded lust for power and this includes Bloc, Liberals, NDP, Green, Conservative and those flying yoga guys.  I have heard complaints on here that the opposition always votes against the government.  Here is a opposition leader that is not and there are complaints.  Stephane Dion could have caused an election and possibly won it.  The polls say he has just a good of chance as Stephen Harper.  He chose not too because Canada has already two elections since 2004 and to have another at such an earlier point would be bad for the country.  That is an example of a guy and a Liberal putting his own ambitions behind the interest of the country.  So you may question his unwillingness to defeat the government on confidence measures.  But compare the number of confidence measures proposed by Paul Martin and Stephen Harper.  Martin had less confidence measures so there were less opportunities for Stephen Harper to avoid them.  Not so for Dion, as Harper has way more confidence measures (remember in the fall when he said every measure was a confidence measure?) and it is not as easy for Stephane Dion to avoid them, because again, an election at this point is not in the interest of the country. 

 

[JBG]

Dude.  Harper did the same when he was in opposition.   That's what I am saying.  Stop picking on Dion for doing the same things that Harper did when he was in opposition.   

I don't want to belabor the following facts:

• Canada had just had an election about 7-8 months before that vote;
• The CPC Policty Convention was a week away
• Harper had just become leader;  and
• Harper was gentlemanly enough not to force an election while the LPOC was leaderless and/or when Dion was very new.

 

[aesop081]

He chose not too because Canada has already two elections since 2004 and to have another at such an earlier point would be bad for the country.   That is an example of a guy and a Liberal putting his own ambitions behind the interest of the country. 

:rofl:

 

[Yrys]

Just once I would like to see a Liberal who used the good of the country , rather than the Party, as the acid test of wrong and right.

I think CDN Aviator quote of stegner prove that for Liberal, good of the party IS good of the country...

 

[RangerRay]

Did it matter that he tried to involve Governor General Clarkson to do his dirty work for him?

IIRC, Martin ignored a non-confidence measure and continued to govern.  The Opposition was within it's right to petition the Governor General in that case.

As for President Dion of Abstainistan, I could understand it if it were right after an election (a la the former leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, PM Harper).  However, we are well into one of the longest running minority governments where the government has no coalition partner.  If Citoyen Dion were such a principled man, and if PM Harper is such a "threat to the planet" (paraphrased) then he would join the other opposition parties in tossing out the Tories, polls be damned. 

When the Martin minority was defeated, the polls showed that status quo would result, yet that did not stop the Tories from standing on principle and defeating a government that they felt was bad for the country.  If the Tories are as bad for the country as the Liberals say they are, then they should be defeating this government at the first opportunity, instead of hiding behind the excuse "Canadians don't want and election".

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

The fact of the matter is that it's the Liberal Party who do not want an election. They are broke and have an extremely weak leader who will not fare well under the harsh glare of a 60 day campaign. Contiual gaffes and a lack of coherent policy, other than "see how dedicated I am to Kyoto...I named my dog after it," will hand the disciplined Conservative machine of "a policy a day" the majority they long for. The majority of the Liberal party know they have to bide their time and hope for an opportunity to knife Dion and cast him aside or hope that Mr Harper makes a huge mistake that they can use to fight an election on and rally some financial support for the party.

 

[stegner]

ROFL

I think CDN Aviator quote of stegner prove that for Liberal, good of the party IS good of the country...

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Conservative folks want an election so Harper gets another mandate.  That is not as good for the country as it may or may not be for the Conservative Party.  Are Canadians stampeding on the grounds of Parliament, or the office of the MP's or in the streets demanding an election? Doesn't it bother you folks in your day to day lives all the peoples, strangers even, possibly tearing out their hair and crying, coming up to you saying gosh darn I wish there was an election? Well I think you have your answer of whether Canadian want an election.   

I don't want to belabor the following facts:

    * Canada had just had an election about 7-8 months before that vote;
    * The CPC Policty Convention was a week away
    * Harper had just become leader;  and
    * Harper was gentlemanly enough not to force an election while the LPOC was leaderless and/or when Dion was very new.

Fair enough.  Though if you recall that the leaderless Libs were ahead of the polls were ahead of Harper.  If Harper had called an election when there was no Liberal leader or when Dion was very new there would have been backlash similar to the backlash Chretien got for taking advantage of Stockwell Day in 2000.  Harper who had complained rather much about this would have looked hypocritical had he taken advantage.     

IIRC, Martin ignored a non-confidence measure and continued to govern.  The Opposition was within it's right to petition the Governor General in that cas

If it was truly a confidence vote the GG would have intervened.  A confidence vote is not a confidence vote until the GG accepts its a confidence vote even though it might be nothing less than a confidence vote.  Harper's attempt to involve the GG began before the May 10, 2005 vote though. 

As for President Dion of Abstainistan, I could understand it if it were right after an election (a la the former leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, PM Harper).  However, we are well into one of the longest running minority governments where the government has no coalition partner.  If Citoyen Dion were such a principled man, and if PM Harper is such a "threat to the planet" (paraphrased) then he would join the other opposition parties in tossing out the Tories, polls be damned.

It's up to Dion's discretion to decide whether or not he will support the government.  If you folks don't like it join the Liberal Party and demand Dion intervene.  In all honesty,  I think his unwillingness to vote is really unnerving for the Conservatives.  They want an election badly but do not want to call it themselves.  That is why they have so many confidence measures.  Dion is not going to do them any favors until he is good and ready.  I don't blame this approach.  The longer he stays in the more scandals emerge from the Harper team (which is inevitable for all governments) and which can be used as ammunition in an election.  If Harper mismanages the economy and the unemployment levels rise that translates into votes for Dion in the next election.

Like it or not the Liberals are supporting the Conservative government that many of you enjoy so why are you complaining?  Given that Harper has capitulated to Dion on things like Afghanistan and other policies, the Liberals are a de facto Coalition partner as their support is contingent on Harper compromising.  Be patient though, by law there will be election sometime in Fall 2009.  Can you folks wait till then? 

 

[a_majoor]

Since GG's have been very highly paid patronage posts for decades, and the then sitting GG was an ex journalist, I suspect Her Excellency was uncertain of what to do and unwilling to use the reserve powers inherent in the office. The King Byng affair is also a powerful cautionary, although Lord Byng used the reserve powers of the Vice Regal office correctly, he was pilloried over the affair and subsequent office holders have been rather gun shy since.

The repeated assertions that "Harper abstained too" is becoming tiresome. How many times did Steven Harper and the CPC caucus abstain from a vote while in opposition? How many times has Mr Dion and the Liberal caucus abstained while in opposition? Get the point?

You and many MSM pundits claim the CPC actually wants an election. As in any other case, the burden of proof lies on you and the punditry. The CPC is governing and passing its legislation with the current parliament, I expect the Prime Minister is content to continue to govern until Oct 2009 so long as he is able to pass his legislative agenda.

As noted in another thread, the Conservative government is making far reaching changes to Canadian society through a program of incremental changes; it would seem to me that the best way to ensure they take root and become more difficult to overturn is through remaining in power as long as possible. If it also helps the CPC tactically through the immolation of the Liberal party through mismanagement of their resources and internal feuds, then so much the better.