Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Paul Martin Withdraws Election Promise | Main | Isn't It Funny? »

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Vast Carelessness and Veritigo

I can think of no other word for Andrew Coyne's column in today's National Post, "Proof there are no more rules" (sorry, can't find a link yet) other than brilliant.

I don’t think he could have found a better quote to open with:

They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made. -- The Great Gatsby

Here's an excerpt from the column:

I had thought the feeling of nausea that washed over me at the news was one of disgust. I now realize it was vertigo. The bottom has fallen out of Canadian politics. There are, quite literally, no rules any more, no boundaries, no limits. We are staring into an abyss, where everything is permissible...

Posted by Kevin Steel on May 18, 2005 in Media | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8344528c853ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Vast Carelessness and Veritigo:

Comments

Well put. We studied the Great Gatsby in my english class this semester and it was one of the first things that came to my mind when I heard about the defection or one could say "deflection"(of attention to Liberal corruption). The Liberals are reckless and play dirty. They don't care what the population wants.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-05-18 9:05:42 AM


AC Coyne is correct; the abyss is at our feet, at our nose, our eyes; the final test will be the few hours in Parliament this Thursday next.

Freedom and democracy is dead.


The last best hope for its resurrection rests with you as a voter: if, if, if, another election is held.

Will there be another election for you to mark your ballot?

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-05-18 9:17:58 AM



For all the talk of "principles" how do conservatives square the fact that the CPC will support the budget that they opposed after first supporting it, but they will oppose the ammendment that wouldn't even exist if they had supported the budget in the first place?

What DO the CPC stand for anyway?

Posted by: Bob | 2005-05-18 9:18:41 AM


"For all the talk of "principles" how do conservatives square the fact that the CPC will support the budget that they opposed after first supporting it, but they will oppose the ammendment that wouldn't even exist if they had supported the budget in the first place?

What DO the CPC stand for anyway?"

The Conservatives supported the first budget but then it as messed up by the NDP-Librano budget. You seem to be avoiding that fact. They still support the first budget but do not support the irresponsible spending spree that the Libranos have gone one. Bob, I think in posing your question you have answered it on your own.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-05-18 9:23:03 AM


Taking down a corrupt government. The non-confidence votes last week was supposedly a non-non-confidence vote, so we have to do it any way we can. Its not about the budget, stupid.

Posted by: ld | 2005-05-18 9:23:59 AM


Bob:

CPC stands for honour, integrity.

We do stand for neither the moral turpitude so demonstrably on display on a daily basis from the LPC nor for adherence to the welfare nanny state.

Posted by: da caribou | 2005-05-18 9:26:12 AM


Is it really a shattering betrayal when a woman everyone knew wasn't really a conservative leaves the Conservative Party?

Aren't those who were all "Oh Belinda, she's so young and attractive, she'll put a fresh face on the Party -- who cares what (if anything) she believes in" just getting what they deserve? I'm not surprised or disappointed -- quite the opposite. I'm in full gloat mode.

Those who put "winning the next election at any cost" over "sticking with real conservative principles", who favoured style over substance and strategy over principle, are just reaping their tacky little whirlwind.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2005-05-18 9:49:16 AM


I can't help but feel sorry for all those poor Liberal backbenchers who now realize they have no hope in hell of ever getting a Cabinet position. Martin's going to have to hire a motivatoinal speaker!

Posted by: John Brown | 2005-05-18 10:14:52 AM


Andrew,

If the CPC had supported the budget in the first place rather than abstaining while the NDP and Bloc opposed it, then there would not have been a need for the Hargrove ammendments and increased spending to appease the dippers. No?

How do you reconcile that they did not support it in the past, but now do?

Posted by: Bob | 2005-05-18 10:16:24 AM


"Those who put "winning the next election at any cost" over "sticking with real conservative principles", who favoured style over substance and strategy over principle, are just reaping their tacky little whirlwind."

Now THAT I agree with. As I said in the other thread, I *want* a strong CPC. One that stands for something. The Reform Party changed Canadian policies and politics in a much more profound way than the current CPC can ever hope to do (even if they get a minority gov't), because they stood for consistent and solid principles rather than flavour of the month or Liberal-lite.

Posted by: Bob | 2005-05-18 10:19:17 AM


It isn't about leadership; it isn't even about political parties. Listen to, read, what Andrew Coyne wrote. It's deeper than this; the problem we are facing is that our political infrastructure has been hi-jacked and we are no longer a democracy.

The Liberal Party will do anything - anything - to remain in power. They have the money to do this. It is OUR money, but they use it for their agenda of remaining in power. They use our money to bribe us. What has happened over the past few weeks? Martin bought the NDP vote of Ontario, he bought Newfoundland/Labrador. Nova Scotia. Saskatchewan. All with our money.

He went on prime time national television, using our money, not for a report of national interest but for a partisan plea to implore us not to 'kick him out'. He promised he'd call an election 'after Gomery'. But he's already denigrated Adscam to the work of 'a few rogues';and remember, Gomery is not mandated to 'judge' but only to report. We can do that ourselves by listening to that sworn testimony. Martin has already stated that Belinda Stronach will 'clean up' from the Gomery report. That's all that he sees that is needed! The Liberals remain in power and sweep the dirt clean.

Remember last year's election ads: There is No Other Party than the Liberals; anything else is UnCanadian. Do you want to be 'unCanadian'?
Think about this year's attacks against the CPC. They are 'aligned with the Bloc'. The Liberals define them as 'unCanadian'. But wait. The Bloc are duly-elected representatives of Canadians who live in Quebec. No, they are not all separatistes; but they do want a different federal infrastructure. So does the West. Is it unCanadian to dissent, to disagree, to debate? Yes - it is. There is only ONE WAY of existence in Canada - the centralist Liberal mode.

We no longer are, as a people, in control of our government. An oligarchy runs our gov't, using the Liberal Party as its political arm. Our official opposition is ignored; it can win a house vote - and that vote is ignored. Utterly ignored. The G-G? Don't count on her; she wants that position for life; she's part of the gang.

Yes, you may think I'm a 'conspiracy nut'. No - I'm not. I'm referring to realities not spurious causes. We have Power Corp/Desmarais using the political arm as its agent; and we have the Liberal Party, its agent at the moment, that has moved itself into a corrupt oligarchy rejecting accountability, openness, due process - and our constitution.

It's not about leadership. It's not about something as stupid and irrelevant as whether Stephen Harper smiles enough (my god, how dumb can we be, to have columnists write about his personality as a requirement for leadership?)..It's not even about Belinda Stronach and her father's ambitions (my god, how can anyone take such an empty-head as her seriously?). It's about the very infrastructure of our government - which has moved out of control of the people, and now, is beyond our reach.

Posted by: ET | 2005-05-18 10:30:39 AM


ET

With all due respect, the infrastructure of our government has not, in any way, moved out of control of the people.

Unless I'm mistaken, the electoral system is exactly the same as it was a year ago. Vote for change. That is the only solution that has ever existed and is the only solution now.

But, in order for this to work, the CPC needs to provide an alternative. A real alternative. Not one that runs around the country agreeing to honour all of PM's spending. Not one that confuses its own supporters on whether they support or oppose the budget. Not one that simply says "we are not corrupt like they are". One that moves beyond platitudes such as presented above by da caribou:

"CPC stands for honour, integrity.

We do stand for neither the moral turpitude so demonstrably on display on a daily basis from the LPC nor for adherence to the welfare nanny state."

What does this this tell me? Nothing. Present some real alternatives. Present some policies. Tell me why I should support them besides the fact that they are not crooks - that simply isn't enough.

Taranto, as always, says it better than I:
http://letitbleed.blogs.com/blog/2005/05/oh_for_the_luvv.html


Posted by: Bob | 2005-05-18 10:47:50 AM


Bob why cant you just come out and say you are a Liberal instead of the beating around the bush about conservatives not having any policy. You are absolutely fooling no one, you are a goddamn apologist for a bunch of crooks that are running our country. Tell me how the people are in control when Martin ignores two non confidence motions passed successfully against his government?? Every cent he has promised is now illegal. Canada is now under a dictatorship whether you and the rest of the liberal media in this country want to believe it or not. The truth is Bob you are on the side of crooks. Now give up the bullshit.

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-18 1:13:28 PM


MikeP.

Slow your engine Big-Rig. It is possible to not agree with the CPC's current approach and still not be a supporter of the Liberal Party.

I suppose that you also believe that these folks - who share my concerns about the CPC's lack of platform - are also Liberals in disguise.

http://andrewcoyne.com/2005/05/fiscal-conservatives.php
http://letitbleed.blogs.com/blog/2005/05/oh_for_the_luvv.html
http://babblingbrooks.blogspot.com/2005/05/so-hows-blogging-going.html
http://reviewing.blogspot.com/2005/05/wisdom-from-carbuncle.html
http://www.jayjardine.blogspot.com/

Let me just ask you straight out:
(1) Do you honestly believe that the CPC has articulated anything resembling a coherent platform or even a consistent message other than "we are not crooks"?
(2) Do you honestly believe that a platform based on "we are not crooks" can win an election?

Posted by: Bob | 2005-05-18 1:56:34 PM


Bob, you're so adamant about being Liberal right? What's your price? Has the Liberal party given you a seat in cabinet?

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-05-18 2:01:19 PM


They offered me Deb Grey's pension plan.

Posted by: Bob | 2005-05-18 2:15:03 PM


"They offered me Deb Grey's pension plan"

You open your mouth Bob and your true colours show every time. Here is a quote from a commenter on the Coynes site you gave me. Hope Occam doesnt mind me quoting him.

"If you're attacking them for pledging to go along with Liberal perfidy because they really have no choice, what would the Red Star and the Globe do to them if they didn't play ball? It's a long series and you win one period at a time."

So you can see everyone has opinions on whether Stephen Harper is right or wrong to follow through on his soon to be predecessors promises. In my opinion it makes him a man of honesty and integrity. Sorry I cannot say the same thing for your Liberals. Martin as you now know put off the budget vote for a week so he could entice Stronach to his side. These are the guys you like Bob. You may try to hide behind someone elses columns or blogs, but it doesnt work. You are a Liberal.

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-18 2:28:24 PM


You crack me up MikeP, you really do. It's like you don't even read what I write. You want to believe I'm a Liberal, knock yourself out.

(1) Do you honestly believe that the CPC has articulated anything resembling a coherent platform or even a consistent message other than "we are not crooks"?
(2) Do you honestly believe that a platform based on "we are not crooks" can win an election?

and I'll add a third one

(3) Expalin to me how committing himself to the bad ("illegal" I believe you called it) spending promises of the Liberal Government makes Harper a "man of honesty and integrity", rather than simply another form of vote-buying?

Posted by: Bob | 2005-05-18 2:37:13 PM


If it looks red and writes red more than 90% of the time it is red.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-05-18 2:49:15 PM


Bob & the CPC:


Bob has Pravda, Tass, Goebbels, Stalin, Lenin, Paul Martin, Jack Layton, Etc., as his mentors.


The tongue of the serpent;

Communist Party of Canada:


http://www.communist-party.ca

Happy Gulag, Bob.

See you in 25 years, tovarisch.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-05-18 3:07:27 PM


While they are illegal in the sense that Martin, as Coyne puts its, has no authority to do it, For Stephen Harper to fulfill the promises is not. Well pick one, lets say NS. He promises them something around one hundred million. Now NS is basically depending on that. Would you if you were elected, not give it them or at least work out some other means of giving it to them??
If I was willing to overlook all liberal debauchery, theft, crookedness, but pick on Harper for vote buying when he is trying to full promises made by others, whose side would you say I was on??

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-18 3:09:47 PM


Check this out Bob and tell me again the conservatives have no platform.
http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050319-POLICY%20DECLARATION.pdf

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-18 3:13:18 PM


Wow, I guess if you advocate for a strong Conservative voice in this forum rather than a wishy-washy Conservative Party you are either a Liberal in disguise or a latent Communist.

Sorry to have wasted all of your time. I guess you must be correct that Harper et al are doing just fine and shouldn't change a thing.

No need to even discuss alternatives, I suppose, despite the fact that this approach hasn't won them anything for over a decade, and despite the fact that the Reform accomplished much more against a majority government than the CPC have been able to accomplish vs a minority.

I'll end my contribution to this thread by quoting Kathy Shaidle, who - I hope - you will not also agree is a disguised Liberal or Communist and whose view is *exactly* the same as mine on this particular point (although not on others I'm sure):

"Those who put "winning the next election at any cost" over "sticking with real conservative principles", who favoured style over substance and strategy over principle, are just reaping their tacky little whirlwind."

Posted by: Bob | 2005-05-18 3:29:45 PM


I happen to agree with Kathy. I am glad that Belinda is gone. She was trouble from day one and never was a conservative. As for reaping what they sow, how do you keep a Belinda Stronach or a David Orchard out of the party??
If you have alternatives Bob, by all means lets hear them. Dont just take your baseball bat and go home.

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-18 3:43:38 PM


I'm so glad others are appreciating the most excellent writing in the country on the present political situation, which is being done by Andrew Coyne. That one word - vertigo - is what I felt yesterday. I thought that the Liberals coudn't have stooped any lower. It's not about the act of Belinda crossing the floor or her treatment of Peter - it's about what deals and agreements were made with Magna people and the Liberals in secret. It's about so many Canadians believing that Harper is a power-hungry political opportunist, when the Liberals (including newly appointment HRDC minister Stronach) are so blatant about acting in that manner.

Posted by: Charlotte | 2005-05-18 8:01:30 PM


Charlotte,

True, Coyne is on fire right now. He's terrific.

It is a shame the Shotgun has become such a CPC echo chamber that even conservatives who don't agree with them are being run out as Liberals and Communists.

MikeP, I'm not surprised Bob took his bat and went home. You and others showed zero respect for his thoughts, never answered his legitimate questions, and showed no interest in actually having an interesting discussion. You need to cool your jets. Not everyone who disagrees with Harper (or you) is a flaming left-wing idiot. Try to read with an open mind.

Posted by: MarioGr | 2005-05-19 9:00:40 AM


MarioGr: That simply isnt true. In fact I answered all of his questions. His first two questions were in regard to platform of the conservatives, I gave him a link to it. His second question was is "we are not crooks" enough reason to vote for them. If he reads the platform his question will be answered.

Here is my answer to the third question:

While they are illegal in the sense that Martin, as Coyne puts its, has no authority to do it, For Stephen Harper to fulfill the promises is not. Well pick one, lets say NS. He promises them something around one hundred million. Now NS is basically depending on that. Would you if you were elected, not give it them or at least work out some other means of giving it to them??
If I was willing to overlook all liberal debauchery, theft, crookedness, but pick on Harper for vote buying when he is trying to full promises made by others, whose side would you say I was on??

All I ask Bob is really knowing that the Liberals are crooks would he still vote for them??

When you see day after day the level the LIberals will sink to stay in power, its not unusual to rev up the jets if you think someone is apologizing for them. Thats certainly the impression I get from not just Bob, but other commenters on here.

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-19 10:32:45 AM


The Bob Bashers in this thread ought to take a logic course or something and learn a wee bit about what ad hominem means.

Bob's questions is a question that concerns me as well. And no, I am NOT a Liberal, a Marxist, Communist, or anything else of the sort. I am however, if you want to read my blog, a libertarian.

So perhaps as an admitted libertarian, that is not a member of the CPC, Liberal Party, or NDP, I can pose the same questions Bob asked, and see if we can actually get a decent answer here without the ad hominem:

"(1) Do you honestly believe that the CPC has articulated anything resembling a coherent platform or even a consistent message other than "we are not crooks"?
(2) Do you honestly believe that a platform based on "we are not crooks" can win an election?

and I'll add a third one

(3) Expalin to me how committing himself to the bad ("illegal" I believe you called it) spending promises of the Liberal Government makes Harper a "man of honesty and integrity", rather than simply another form of vote-buying?"

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2005-05-20 9:28:37 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.