i know this is a canwest story... but i read it in the paper yesterday and thought that i would share it with all of you... he is a wily mother f***er... and he's taking our wonderful country right down the tubes...
Angry Albertan returns
The old, prickly Harper is back, and he is showing, his contempt for Parliament and the media
DON MARTIN, CanWest News Service
Published: Saturday, May 20, 2006
He emerged from the squeaker Commons vote on extending the Afghanistan mission, ignored the speaking podium his staff had set up and waved off questions until he could climb a handful of steps toward his second-floor office.
Having reached the desired altitude for showcasing his superior attitude in vintage Brian Mulroney style, Stephen Harper turned to lord over the assembled media with his message.
Free advice to the prime minister: Until you shape up, being filmed from below creates seriously lousy television optics. That button-straining gut fills the screen and the downward stare adds a chin or two.
No, this isn't another tired rant about Harper holding journalists in disdain, which he does and we'd best get used to it because it's going to get worse. I can't believe Fox News is up here collecting footage for a story on this showdown. It's an inside problem of scant outside interest.
But Harper holding Parliament in contempt is a legitimate public concern - and he does. And it will worsen.
In just three days this week, there have been three examples of Harper's churlish disregard for a democratic institution he repeatedly pretended to value during his stint in official opposition.
We've witnessed the return of the angry Albertan, the bitter and hard-done-by personality his image-enhancers thought they'd licked into likeable submission during the last election campaign.
Signs of the old Harper first flared during his furious reaction to the parliamentary committee that nixed his nomination of retired oilman Gwyn Morgan as the first chairperson of his new Public Appointments Commission. It was a horribly bad and frustrating decision, but angrily killing the commission until he controls Parliament through majority rule is a Grade 3 recess reaction.
Harper then used the back door to effectively kill the federal gun registry without parliamentary approval. It was born on the floor of the House of Commons a billion dollars ago and should die there, too. But Harper chose to pull the plug through an amnesty for low-calibre criminals, pending some unspecified future date when he'll have the inclination to request its euthanasia in the Commons.
The kicker was his offhanded warning Wednesday that this prime minister would refuse to accept a negative verdict from the House of Commons on extending the Afghanistan deployment.
Even if the vote goes against the government, "we will proceed with another year," Harper said. "And if we need further efforts or a further mandate to go ahead into the future, we will do so alone and we will go to the Canadian people to get that mandate."
Now there's parliamentary respect for you - telling MPs their vote simply doesn't matter even as they start a six-hour discussion on what is certain to be a death sentence for dozens of soldiers, a debate that Harper had announced just two days earlier.
And there was something hypocritical about the government's glee at watching the Liberal solidarity fracture over the question. Former free-vote advocate Harper had whipped his caucus into submission, refusing to allow anyone to vote their conscience on the question. That makes it easy to appear united. But the Liberal leader let his MPs vote their conscience, a division that arguably more accurately reflects Canadian opinion on the conflict.
It was a lousy week for parliamentary respect and suggests Harper learned a thing or two from the previous Liberal reign.
As one Conservative MP observed not long ago, "it is the Parliament that's supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party." The speaker? None other than, drum roll please, official opposition leader Stephen Harper, circa 2004.
"If the Liberals think they can walk in and make Parliament not work because they refuse to co-operate or consult, they're in for a rude awakening. So I would urge them to get over the fact they don't have a majority, which they believe is their God-given right, and get on with making Parliament effective." So who's that talking? Why more two-year-old comments by Harper.
From afar, Harper might look decisive and principled. Up close, he looks increasingly angry, unparliamentary and, if he persists in scrumming on stairs instead of running up them, chunky.
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2006
Angry Albertan returns
The old, prickly Harper is back, and he is showing, his contempt for Parliament and the media
DON MARTIN, CanWest News Service
Published: Saturday, May 20, 2006
He emerged from the squeaker Commons vote on extending the Afghanistan mission, ignored the speaking podium his staff had set up and waved off questions until he could climb a handful of steps toward his second-floor office.
Having reached the desired altitude for showcasing his superior attitude in vintage Brian Mulroney style, Stephen Harper turned to lord over the assembled media with his message.
Free advice to the prime minister: Until you shape up, being filmed from below creates seriously lousy television optics. That button-straining gut fills the screen and the downward stare adds a chin or two.
No, this isn't another tired rant about Harper holding journalists in disdain, which he does and we'd best get used to it because it's going to get worse. I can't believe Fox News is up here collecting footage for a story on this showdown. It's an inside problem of scant outside interest.
But Harper holding Parliament in contempt is a legitimate public concern - and he does. And it will worsen.
In just three days this week, there have been three examples of Harper's churlish disregard for a democratic institution he repeatedly pretended to value during his stint in official opposition.
We've witnessed the return of the angry Albertan, the bitter and hard-done-by personality his image-enhancers thought they'd licked into likeable submission during the last election campaign.
Signs of the old Harper first flared during his furious reaction to the parliamentary committee that nixed his nomination of retired oilman Gwyn Morgan as the first chairperson of his new Public Appointments Commission. It was a horribly bad and frustrating decision, but angrily killing the commission until he controls Parliament through majority rule is a Grade 3 recess reaction.
Harper then used the back door to effectively kill the federal gun registry without parliamentary approval. It was born on the floor of the House of Commons a billion dollars ago and should die there, too. But Harper chose to pull the plug through an amnesty for low-calibre criminals, pending some unspecified future date when he'll have the inclination to request its euthanasia in the Commons.
The kicker was his offhanded warning Wednesday that this prime minister would refuse to accept a negative verdict from the House of Commons on extending the Afghanistan deployment.
Even if the vote goes against the government, "we will proceed with another year," Harper said. "And if we need further efforts or a further mandate to go ahead into the future, we will do so alone and we will go to the Canadian people to get that mandate."
Now there's parliamentary respect for you - telling MPs their vote simply doesn't matter even as they start a six-hour discussion on what is certain to be a death sentence for dozens of soldiers, a debate that Harper had announced just two days earlier.
And there was something hypocritical about the government's glee at watching the Liberal solidarity fracture over the question. Former free-vote advocate Harper had whipped his caucus into submission, refusing to allow anyone to vote their conscience on the question. That makes it easy to appear united. But the Liberal leader let his MPs vote their conscience, a division that arguably more accurately reflects Canadian opinion on the conflict.
It was a lousy week for parliamentary respect and suggests Harper learned a thing or two from the previous Liberal reign.
As one Conservative MP observed not long ago, "it is the Parliament that's supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party." The speaker? None other than, drum roll please, official opposition leader Stephen Harper, circa 2004.
"If the Liberals think they can walk in and make Parliament not work because they refuse to co-operate or consult, they're in for a rude awakening. So I would urge them to get over the fact they don't have a majority, which they believe is their God-given right, and get on with making Parliament effective." So who's that talking? Why more two-year-old comments by Harper.
From afar, Harper might look decisive and principled. Up close, he looks increasingly angry, unparliamentary and, if he persists in scrumming on stairs instead of running up them, chunky.
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2006
0 comments:
Post a Comment