I've sort of been swinging back and forth between the two alternatives, my logic for answer number 2 being that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and voters are too uninterested to work through all the flip-floppery necessary to spot the hypocrisy.
I would point out that NDP MP Pat Martin has also managed to turn on a dime on this issue and is now protesting the poor lady's maltreatment. So there is much hypocrisy to go around.
8 comments:
Heaven forbid that anyone in the liberal party should employ a tactic.
I think you mean uninterested, not disinterested.*
*Sorry for this note, but it is one of the rare words I keep trying to defend, "disinterested", since it is unique in its meaning (not the same as altruistic).
If Pat Martin is to be our standard, then we are doomed. DOOMED, I say!
As I noted over at Jeff's I think Harper's handling of this is an issue and there is no hypocrisy in saying, on the one hand, she is not competent enough to be a Minister of the Crown doing the nation's business, and on the other saying that Harper's underhandedness in dealing with Guergis both went too far and highlights a very disturbing pattern of behaviour for our government.
In particular, and more significantly, it once again shows how, if you cross Harper, you will be personally punished and lied about way out of proportion to your infraction?
We see how he treats civil servants when they don't obey: they get fired or their good reputations savaged or both. Linda Keen, the MPCC chair, the former Information Commissioner, Immigration tribunal board members, Environment Canada scientists, the list goes on.
And he will go full frontal attack on private citizens - president of the BMO and Chair of Council of CEOs, Graves - and MPs who cross him as well: they tried the "criminal investigations" thing first with Bill Casey you will recall when they accused him of fraud and embezzlement; they tried it with Garth Turner leading to success at the polls.
I think it is the proper job of the opposition to question and challenge problematic cabinet ministers. They are doing the nation's business and have to be held to a higher standard.
But Harper has called in the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner on what appears to be very flimsy grounds. I think that is unconscionable and speaks volumes about the threats and chilling effects of this government.
Is it a huge confidence-shattering issue? Of course not, on its own. But is it yet another example highlighting the anti-democratic culture of deceipt perpetrated by Stephen Harper? Absolutely.
My own thought is that the problem here is that Harper defended Guergis throughout until he accused her of a crime of which we have not been informed, and called in the RCMP. And then he booted her from caucus, not from cabinet. From cabinet is hardly a big deal, from caucus is, and it is possible to feel some sympathy for Guergis, and considerable suspicion about Harper, over this.
As Ted says, it is part of a pattern of nasty behavior from Harper. And it isn't hypocritical to oppose nasty tactics used against people we otherwise dislike.
Is it hypocritical? Maybe.
But it certainly demonstrates a major difference between liberal and conservative supporters, because when Harper et al flip flop his followers simply echo the new party line. When the liberals flip flop it leads to much angst amongst the party faithful.
Alfred Apps has demonstrated his political instincts are terrible.
I dunno, BCL. Is an incompetent right-wing woman incapable of being a victim of sexism?
(I'm with Ted.)
Post a Comment