The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Oh noes, not a coalition!!!!
I've written before about my feelings about using a dead coalition pioneered by Stephane Dion as a scapegoat for everything the Conservatives have been doing wrong since the last election.
So I took notice and was annoyed a few weeks ago when Tom Flanagan posited that, were Michael Ignatieff to get the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to vote with him to bring down the Harper government, he would, in essence, be "reactivat[ing] the coalition with the socialists and separatists against which Canadians reacted so strongly last fall."
So what, oh what, am I supposed to think about the Conservatives now looking for support from the "socialists and the separatists" to get their government through next winter?
This story has some commentary on the situation:
... didn't Stephen Harper once say something about the inadvisability of getting into bed with the socialists and separatists?
Like: "My friends, such an illegitimate government would be a catastrophe, for our democracy, our unity and our economy, especially at a time of global instability."
Why yes! I think he did.
To be clear: I don't think that this is a coalition, but if I actually believed the Conservatives' rhetoric on this stuff, I would. That's why it's so funny, and that's why I'm enjoying this way too much.
Posted by Janet Neilson on April 30, 2009 | Permalink
"So what, oh what, am I supposed to think about the Conservatives now looking for support from the "socialists and the separatists" to get their government through next winter?"
I'll ask you again: have you managed to find two (2) entities in the universe that you don't regard as morally equivalent?
It's a serious error in logic I couldn't and wouldn't make if I were to live ten thousand lives, nobody in the adult world will ever take you seriously if you don't drop it. You do it in *every* debate, it's like your one size fits all rhetorical device. It's immature, it's stupid, and it's got to go.
Posted by: Your Better | 2009-04-30 12:52:48 PM
Janet, you must be confusing Harper with someone who has a shred of integrity left.
Posted by: Craig | 2009-04-30 2:07:23 PM
"Janet, you must be confusing Harper with someone who has a shred of integrity left."
Three years, no ministerial resignations due to impropriety (Boobiegate does not count). Paul Wells says he's the cleanest PM since Trudeau, and Wells despises Harper. Harper is quantifiably the cleanest PM we've ever had, his record of keeping his promises is significantly better than Liberals. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, and probably a closet Liberal.
Posted by: Your Better | 2009-04-30 2:12:05 PM
Hypocrite Harper is back.
I can't wait to see what his "not a Conservative-Socialist-Separtist coalition" looks like.
Posted by: John | 2009-04-30 9:27:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.