Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Debate in Scotland about Prostitution | Main | Whigs and Tories »

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Bernier's Comeback!

My favourite former Minister may be back in Cabinet before Christmas, according to columnist Don Martin. I think that there is a strong case for the likelihood of Maxine Bernier's return. There has already been evidence of Stephen Harper rebuilding bridges with the popular MP.

Mr. Bernier has two advantages that makes him impossible for Mr. Harper to ignore him.

1. He has staying power. Even with the scandals of the last Parliament, Mr. Bernier has proven that he can win his seat and keep winning it.

2. He is from the Quebec City area. Any Conservative majority government is going to be partly built on Quebec City. A charming and well known Minister from the area could make all the difference.

So why is this such good news? Why am I excited about Minister Bernier? His videos demonstrate his deep understanding of Freedom and Responsibility and also there is his long time support for the flat tax. Such ideas are a welcome addition to the highest levels of government.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on December 9, 2009 | Permalink


Advocating freedom in the depths of Harperland? Well good luck to him. He seems to be a stand up chap. But we thought the same thing about Stephen.

Posted by: Publius | 2009-12-09 6:55:56 AM

And now how stupid do they really think we are?

zebra's don't change their stripes

“Yes, actions speak louder than words. It’s time we stopped pretending that Stephen Harper is a “Conservative” like Canada’s authentic traditional “Tories.” They are not behaving at all like the party of John A. Macdonald, John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield or even Brian Mulroney. In fact, they are an oil company-sponsored adaptation of Alberta’s Reform Party with a few former “Progressive” Conservatives (REJECTS) who had no where else to go. Canada’s genuine Progressive Conservatives would never sabotage a global climate change agreement or try to remove equal funding for other parties. They believed in a vibrant democracy and a Canada that is truly a “model for the World.” ” D.S. Barclay, Georgetown http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/735486

“The federal Conservative Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario have both shown a distain for their respective houses that has reached an all time low. Let’s look at the prime minister first. We have the possible torture of Afghan prisoners after we handed them over to the Afghans. Instead of taking a serious look at what was happening, the government decided to attack and discredit the messenger. It went on a campaign to smear the reputation of Richard Colvin who was brave enough to report his concerns. Stephen Harper also went after opposition parties, accusing them of not supporting the troops because they dared to question the government over these allegations. This is when they hit an all-time low. Harper is quoted as saying (while talking to some troops surrounded by Canadian flags), “when some in the political arena do not hesitate before throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform, based on the most flimsy of evidence, remember Canadians from coast to coast are proud of you, I am proud of you and I stand beside you.” So, if you dare to question the government on its handling of issues in Afghanistan, you don’t support the troops? He is ducking behind the troops, using them to make his tenuous point, trying to deflect us from the issue at hand. It is a disgraceful, cowardly way to make a point.” I hold faint hope that we will return to the days of all parties being concerned about Canadians, instead of their antics to maintain and get power at all costs. It’s disheartening. http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2211286

PM represents a fundamental shift in priorities – Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a “values” and fiscal conservative, shares the Thatcher-Reagan goal of reducing any and all forms of taxation on business. The goal is to use the state/corporate nexus to generate rather than redistribute wealth even if this results in ballooning deficits and debts. What is at stake over the HST is the redistribution of taxing powers between the federal and provincial governments. Harper’s goal is to reduce federal spending on health and social programs by transferring full control over these programs along with taxing revenues to the provinces. Ottawa will then use its reduced taxing and spending powers to focus on defence, infrastructure renewal, and to fund the expansion of corporate Canada. This is a clear example of this neoconservative shift of priorities from the well-being of individual Canadians to the well-being of corporate Canada. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/735489


Posted by: reality | 2009-12-09 8:23:55 AM

Damaged goods. Once you've had contacts with organized crime, you can never wash off the stench. He's unfit for public service.

Posted by: dp | 2009-12-09 10:56:40 AM

Connected to organized crime? His ex girlfriend use to date someone who was a biker. I think I might have a friend who has a friend who has a cousin that once hung out with a Blood...does that make me connected to organized crime too?

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-12-09 11:47:26 AM

You have sex with every sex partner your sex partner has had sex with. I wasn't sure where to put punctuation marks, sorry. Did you have sex with any of those friends?

There's a bit more to his story than you mentioned, don't you think? She was married to a full member. He left secret documents in her apartment. She had enough smarts to know she could leverage that, into monetary gain.

If a conservative, like myself, can see how to spin this, what will the opposition do with it? You want to go through another round of defending this guy?

Posted by: dp | 2009-12-09 1:51:12 PM

Wherever he goes, people remember that floozy and her low cut blouse clinging to his arm.

Sometimes sh*t sticks and you can never shake it off.

Posted by: snowgirl | 2009-12-09 11:13:08 PM

You do not have sex with every partner that your partner has had sex with. That makes no sense. And I am much more comfortable defending Bernier's sex life than I am defending Harper's record.

Snowgirl, Kennedy survived committing manslaughter. You know how he did it? He convinced his electorate to vote for him again and again. The people of Bernier's riding had a chance to prove that they were ashamed of him. They opted to re-elect.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-12-10 2:31:15 AM

The people of Bernier's riding had a chance to prove that they were ashamed of him. They opted to re-elect.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-12-10 2:31:15 AM

Do you honestly believe that right or wrong, good or bad, can be determined by the outcome of an election?

Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2009-12-10 7:10:34 AM

Did I say that? Did anywhere I say elections determine right or wrong?

No I just said that, like Kennedy, Bernier has proven he can survive scandal. And, like Kennedy, those scandals will drift into the distant memory.

I was not talking about morality I was talking about politics.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-12-10 7:34:43 AM

His ex girlfriend use to date someone who was a biker.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-12-09 11:47:26 AM

Are you talking about her fling with Giguere the loanshark? Or with Sirois the drug dealer?

Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2009-12-10 7:36:31 AM

By comparing him to Kennedy, you only strengthen the case against him. Remember, left-wing politicians get away with sex scandals, conservatives do not. Their base holds them to higher standards.

I'm not saying he's guilty of anything, other than a rather odd taste in women. That isn't my reason for believing he doesn't belong in the top ranks of government. I just happen to think it's a bad idea to stand too close to someone, who has such a huge bullseye on his back.

Posted by: dp | 2009-12-10 8:04:33 AM

I was not so much comparing him to Kennedy as I was using Kennedy as an example of someone who has survived scandal. Actually I think what Kennedy did was significantly worse and most people would agree.

I don't think the conservative base really holds politicians to a higher standard in sexual matters. In the United States conservative politicians go down for sex scandals because it reveals them to be hypocrites. You don't want someone lecturing you about family values while they are messing around with the nanny.

That being said, it doesn't really hold true in Canada. For one thing perpetual bachelor Bernier has never claimed to be the model of family values. For an other thing Canadians don't care about sex scandals as much as Americans. So what you said doesn't really apply here.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-12-10 8:28:02 AM

Truth be told, I'd vote for him, if he was the conservative on the ballot. I still feel that my criticism is deserved, and he needs to be on probation, for a very long time, at least one more full term.

Posted by: dp | 2009-12-10 8:40:43 AM

"His videos demonstrate his deep understanding of Freedom and Responsibility."

You mean like his deep understanding of responsability when he left documents of critical importance where he gets his candy ?

That she's a bikers' doll only emphasize his incompetence in this case.

Posted by: Marc | 2009-12-10 10:50:20 PM

ChappaquiDICK cost Ted Kennedy the Presidency.

No one ever forgot.

This floozy cost Bernier any chance of gaining credibility outside of his hick town constituency.

Posted by: snowgirl | 2009-12-10 11:27:29 PM

Yes it cost Kennedy the presidency but he continued to have an influence and help set public policy for more than two decades afterwards. This isn't exactly a carear cut short.

Besides, as I said before, what Kennedy did was worse. That is why I used him as an example. Here is someone who caused the death of another human being, then he never lost office. In fact death seems to have been the only thing to be rid of him.

As far as Bernier is concerned there is two questions. Will he be let back in (the political question). Should he be let in (the public policy question). For the latter I give a definite yes. For the former we'll have to see but I think that there is a strong argument for it.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-12-11 2:59:27 AM


Your enthusiasm for Bernier INSIDE the Harpo Junta is ridiculous.

The only way he CAN be in cabinet is by ceasing to BE those things that make him admirable (for instance his long standing opposition to Ottawa and Harpo's desire to centralize securities regulation in Canada).

Far from being cause for celebration, one ought to be saddened that a talented libertarian-leaning politician is plying his trade on behalf of the worst government in Canadian history.

The CPC is NO place for any libertarian. This is Bernier's own cross to bear.

BTW, the Flat Tax??? Put down the Neal Boortz, Hugh, and check out Mises.org.

Posted by: JC | 2009-12-11 8:47:43 PM

No Mises vs Cato squabbling in public please ;)

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-12-12 4:58:38 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.