Harper Appoints Nine Senators

[Cannuck]

I ask that you cease attacks against my personal character, and rather attack my arguments.

What arguments? Your OP was critical of Harper because you didn't like his choices. Well DUH!!! You are a card carrying Lieberal. If you actually posted something substantive to discuss, I'd love to argue it. Quite frankly 5P, you have disappointed me. Since your return, you have been nothing more than a political ad for the Lieberals. If you want to play that game, don't whine when your ass is handed to you.

I don’t quite understand what a broken promise by The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien P.C., O.M., C.C., Q.C., the 20th Prime Minister of Canada, has to do with the topic of Senate reform.

Nothing. I didn't realize the topic was Senate reform. I took from the OP that the topic was "Harper bad". I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy. Chretien had a majority and could have done what he promised. Harper does not have control of the House of Commons. It's fun to point out the double standard that Lieberals use...ignoring the complete disregard of campaign promises of their party while feigning shock because a minority government doesn't fulfill its promises.

It is shocking and brazen partisanship, for the prime minister to appoint the President of the Conservative Party to the Senate.

LOL...cut the crap. It's politics and it has been done forever. That kind of theatrical bullshyte might work when you are an MP standing in front of a camera. It just appears silly here. I'm starting to think that maybe the Lieberal party should pay Andem for the advertising you provide.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Attacks Against Personal Character

What arguments?

Please see the above posts.

You have yet to debate a single word that’s been posted.

Your OP was critical of Harper because you didn't like his choices.

No, I absolutely didn’t—because they were poor choices.

Well DUH!!! You are a card carrying Lieberal.

My membership with the Liberal Party of Canada lapsed (intentionally) during the term of The Honourable Stéphane Dion P.C., M.P. (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville), when he served as the Leader of the Opposition. I haven’t renewed that membership under new leadership either, and I don’t intend to.

If you actually posted something substantive to discuss, I'd love to argue it. Quite frankly 5P, you have disappointed me. Since your return, you have been nothing more than a political ad for the Lieberals. If you want to play that game, don't whine when your ass is handed to you.

And with that, our conversation has ended.

 

[Cannuck]

You have yet to debate a single word that’s been posted.

I could say the same about you

And with that, our conversation has ended.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Cannuck]

Here is a list of poor Senate choices that Lieberal leaders have made.[SIZE=+2][/SIZE]

George Baker 2002

Sharon Carstairs 1994

Anne Cools 1984

Dennis Dawson 2005

Joyce Fairbairn 1984

Frank Mahovlich 1998

Grant Mitchell 2005

 

[aman12]

Cannuck, Anne Cools is a Conservative Senator. Frank Mahovolich is at at least as good as Jacques Demers. Martin and Chretien appointed Conservatives. The bottom line is that Harper has simply gone back on what he promised no matter how else the apoligists try to spin it.

 

[Polygong]

"Controversy"? You do understand that this is one of the main reasons you and the rest of the Liberal supporters have zero credibility, don't you? I mean, a politician that says one thing and does another...STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Seem to me I remember not long ago, a Liberal leader saying he was going to "Hax da G Hes T". If this is the best you can do, it would appear that Harpo is doing a pretty good job.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that the Tories have to choose between two options:

- They can lie and milk the system like the Liberals
OR
- They can be holier than the Liberals.

They continue to try to have both. Sorry, but you only get one or the other. Time for Harper to be straight with Canadians and admit that he has chosen the former.

 

[mit]

Below is Frank McKenna's letter of resignation after Harper's first kick at being PM - Seems that there is no letter from Mike Wilson announcing his retirement or resignation. Was Mike Wilson fired? Is Gary Doer's appointment a politically motivated move made to make Harper appear more friendly to the more socialist side of the voter base? Seems so strange how Harper apparently does not have enough smart people in his organization that he is always reaching for brains outside of elected folks. Emerson who he poached from the Libs - Fortier who became cabinet minister through the Senate - his latest communication director from the Canadaian Taxpayers association. Mr Demers who has no political views other than being a proud supporter of Hockey? I am surprised Harper never nominated anyone from the Toronto Humane society as he is a lover of cats!
Maybe the hidden agenda is to make the Senate a farce (Or a bigger farce) and work to abolish it after his majority.

Text of a Letter from Ambassador Frank McKenna
501 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
January 24, 2006

Mr. Stephen Harper
Prime Minister Elect
c/o The Conservative Party of Canada
1720 - 130 Albert Street
Ottawa, ON
CANADA K1P 5G4
Dear Mr. Harper,
I want to extend sincere congratulations on your success in today’s election.
It was a hard-fought campaign and you have received a very significant vote of confidence from the Canadian public. I know the feeling of exhilaration when the people express confidence in your leadership and vision.
It has been a great privilege for me to serve as Canada’s Ambassador to the United States throughout the past year. I was most grateful for your personal support and that of your Party during my Committee Hearing on the Appointment. It has also been a tremendous personal satisfaction to have been able to serve with the outstanding men and women of this Embassy and Consulates across the United States of America. Canadians may not fully appreciate the strength and commitment of these dedicated public servants who serve our country so proudly.
I’ve always placed great value on the importance of the Canada-US relationship, and, in a short period of time, have learned much about how this critical link can be improved and expanded. In that regard, I would be pleased to offer my full cooperation in sharing insights on management of the many significant and crucial issues that we deal with on a daily basis.
However, I believe you would agree that the enormous value of a political appointment to this position is based on the ability to work intimately with the Canadian Government. It is this perception of closeness that provides a strong platform for the Canadian Ambassador to advance Canada’s interest.
While I would have no difficulty working with you or your Government, it would be virtually impossible to establish the appearance of total confidence and support in a jurisdiction where political Ambassadorial appointees traditionally resign immediately after an election.
Consequently, it is in the best interest of our nation that I submit to you my resignation as Canada’s Ambassador to the United States. I would be pleased to continue to serve until such time as a replacement is named or, I could depart more expeditiously if it is your wish.
With warmest personal regards and best wishes for a productive mandate.
Sincerely,
Frank McKenna
Ambassador

 

[Cannuck]

Basically, it comes down to the fact that the Tories have to choose between two options:

- They can lie and milk the system like the Liberals
OR
- They can be holier than the Liberals.

The Conservatives are politicians. Of course they are going to pick the former. I don't trust Harpo any more than I trusted Cretin or any other Lieberal that has held power. I've merely pointed out that Harpo has not had a majority government. That makes a big difference on how he is allowed to operate and whether or not he can make good on election promises. The Senate issue is a red herring and in trying to make it an issue, it only goes to show that Lieberal Party supporters don't have a lot of significant things to criticize Harpo on.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Cannuck, Anne Cools is a Conservative Senator.

Anne Cools is not only a conservative senator, she belongs to the extreme right wing fringe of the Conservative party (during the SSM debate, she called for a referendum on SSM), she would do any Alberta Conservative proud. I find it incredible that at one time she was a Liberal. What was she thinking? She doesn’t hold a single Liberal view, she is a right wing extremist through and though.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Basically, it comes down to the fact that the Tories have to choose between two options:

- They can lie and milk the system like the Liberals
OR
- They can be holier than the Liberals.

They continue to try to have both. Sorry, but you only get one or the other. Time for Harper to be straight with Canadians and admit that he has chosen the former.

Indeed, Harper is trying to have it both ways. Now, that will play well with his followers. His followers think that Harper is a holy man, with better ethics than Liberals and at the same time they are proud that he can lie and milk the system better than Liberals ever did.

But to the rest of the country, it smacks of rank hypocrisy.

 

[Tonington]

The Senate issue is a red herring and in trying to make it an issue, it only goes to show that Lieberal Party supporters don't have a lot of significant things to criticize Harpo on.

Explain how the Senate is a red herring. If it's an election promise, and he has never fulfilled it, or even tried beyond term limits, then it's not really a red herring.

There is a rich literature of quotes from Harper concerning the Senate. He has said that he would never appoint unelected Senators. He called it a place of Liberal patronage unfit for our democracy. Now that the tables are turned his rhetoric is shown for what it is, meaningless.

So, why would he deserve a stronger mandate, if he doesn't even try to do what he says he would do, and more than that does something he said he would never do? That is not a red herring. Not for somebody who wants a majority mandate.

The red herring is comparing any previous Government to the current one. The previous Government's are not in power, and not the Government seeking a stronger mandate from Canadians. Therefore their broken promises are not really relevant to the current Government's broken promises...

 

[CDNBear]

Pssst, Ton, your ideology is showing...

 

[Cannuck]

Anne Cools - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's nice to see that even Lieberal party supporters agree that Trudeau picked a real winner.

 

[Tonington]

What ideology is that Bear?

 

[Cannuck]

Explain how the Senate is a red herring. If it's an election promise, and he has never fulfilled it, or even tried beyond term limits, then it's not really a red herring.

As has already been pointed out, a minority government does not have the ability to do as it wishes. If you are unable to grasp such a simple concept, perhaps you should refrain from engaging in this discussion.

So, why would he deserve a stronger mandate

He doesn't.

The red herring is comparing any previous Government to the current one.

That's not called a red herring. That's called making fun of Lieberals because of their incredible hypocrisy and double standard.

 

[CDNBear]

What ideology is that Bear?

The one to the left...I don't remember seeing such virulent contempt for any other Gov't, coming from you.

You seem to be on the anti Harpo band wagon. Given your lack of visible contempt for the Liberals when they were in power, compared to your sudden finding of a voice.

One can only surmise, that you have a problem with the ideology, not the action.

 

[Tonington]

Bear, I have contempt for all hypocrites, especially those that seek more control.

I support Senate reform. Harper has campaigned on it, has called for it for years before he had the platform to do so.

When he get's there, all he does is introduce a bill for term limits. I don't care if he does have a minority or not. He could introduce any legislation he wants. But he didn't, and he instead has done the complete opposite of what he has said he would do.

So, why would I support him at all? If he had at least tried to introduce a bill, and it failed, well then that is fine. He did so with same sex marriage, so his supporters can at least be satisfied that he tried.

I am not satisfied. His nominations deserve my contempt.

 

[CDNBear]

Bear, I have contempt for all hypocrites, especially those that seek more control.

As you should.

I support Senate reform. Harper has campaigned on it, has called for it for years before he had the platform to do so.

True.

When he get's there, all he does is introduce a bill for term limits. I don't care if he does have a minority or not. He could introduce any legislation he wants. But he didn't, and he instead has done the complete opposite of what he has said he would do.

Hence why he garners my contempt. Just like the Liberals did, for their BS.

So, why would I support him at all? If he had at least tried to introduce a bill, and it failed, well then that is fine. He did so with same sex marriage, so his supporters can at least be satisfied that he tried.

I am not satisfied. His nominations deserve my contempt.

I agree, you've said nothing here, I wouldn't support.

But the lie, lies in the biased reaction. There is an imbalance to it all. You certainly aren't alone though. And though this is a personal type of conversational direction we're taking here, I don't mind the chatter, you're bright enough to keep it mature.

That said Ton, I have to say that all I see is Conservative bashing, for the sake of your ideology. For when the transgressions of the Liberals filled the air. The sounds of "well the Cons did this", was the resounding reply.

Ton, politicians are scumbags, end of story.

 

[#juan]

Bear, I have contempt for all hypocrites, especially those that seek more control.

I support Senate reform. Harper has campaigned on it, has called for it for years before he had the platform to do so.

When he get's there, all he does is introduce a bill for term limits. I don't care if he does have a minority or not. He could introduce any legislation he wants. But he didn't, and he instead has done the complete opposite of what he has said he would do.

So, why would I support him at all? If he had at least tried to introduce a bill, and it failed, well then that is fine. He did so with same sex marriage, so his supporters can at least be satisfied that he tried.

I am not satisfied. His nominations deserve my contempt.

The nine new senators will go nicely with the eighteen he last appointed to the senatrough.......:roll:

 

[Niflmir]

"Controversy"? You do understand that this is one of the main reasons you and the rest of the Liberal supporters have zero credibility, don't you? I mean, a politician that says one thing and does another...STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Seem to me I remember not long ago, a Liberal leader saying he was going to "Hax da G Hes T". If this is the best you can do, it would appear that Harpo is doing a pretty good job.

With an attitude like that, you should be shipped to Uganda. You don't really seem to appreciate what a democracy is.