Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Actually, He's The Fourth

[Richard] Neufeld is the second Conservative senator in as many months to oppose Harper's third attempt at creating an elected Senate...

The other two are Harper Senate Appointees Nancy Greene Rain (I think that's how she's concatenated her name) and Don Plett, as the folks at the Winnipeg Free Press would know if they read BCLSB. And, as I wrote back years ago (but can't find the link, so you'll have to trust me): Senate reform will die in the Senate. Now and forever.

17 comments:

double nickel said...

Well, they're entitled to their entitlements. ;)

Brian Busby said...

I imagine the Prime Minister must be feeling betrayed by Senators Rain and Plett. After all, as he once told the our American cousins in the National Citizens Coalition, "the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like."

Fred from BC said...

Brian Busby said...

I imagine the Prime Minister must be feeling betrayed by Senators Rain and Plett. After all, as he once told the our American cousins in the National Citizens Coalition, "the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like."



That's why the Prime Minister has always believed in an elected senate. It's hardly his fault that the provinces (well, most of them) refuse to hold the required elections, is it?

Brian Busby said...

No, hardly his fault. Though Stephen Harper did promise not to appoint senators knowing fully that most provinces would not hold elections. The Prime Minister went back on the word on the very day he was sworn in.

One wonders how, after making such a comment to the National Citizens Coalition, he can justify appointing Tory fundraisers and party insiders.

double nickel said...

Geez Fred, how far up Stevie's ass is your head?

Megaan said...

Hi,

We are running a non-profit site; only for the sake of information sharing.

We visit your web site regularly. Recently we came across the "Progressive Bloggers" section in your site. Since our site is also based on regular news updates, we believe it would surely help us to be more effective if we get your site’s link. We have placed your site’s link in our site and we request you to place us in the "Progressive Bloggers" section.

URL: http://news-updations.blogspot.com/
Title: Current news updates, World current news
Email ID: megaanaustin@gmail.com

We would be pleased with your positive response. Looking forward for your reply...

Thank You!!

Admin
Megaan Austin
http://news-updations.blogspot.com/

sharonapple88 said...

No, hardly his fault. Though Stephen Harper did promise not to appoint senators knowing fully that most provinces would not hold elections. The Prime Minister went back on the word on the very day he was sworn in.


Who could forget Michael Fortier?

Just wanted to add that granted the provinces didn't hold elections for the Senate, but no one held a gun to Harper's head to appoint people like fundraiser Irving Gerstein and his apparent political buddies Fabian Manning and Patrick Brazeau.

Brian Busby said...

There are more funraisers, of course, like Linda Frum, who co-chaired a Toronto fundraiser for the Harper-led Canadian Alliance.

But the most obvious must surely be Judith Seidman, who chaired Harper’s campaign for the leadership of the Conservatives, and organized a Montreal fundraiser for the Tories just months before she was appointed.

Fred from BC said...

Brian Busby said...

No, hardly his fault. Though Stephen Harper did promise not to appoint senators knowing fully that most provinces would not hold elections.


"Knowing fully", you say?

How could he possibly know that? Has someone granted him psychic powers? Senate elections may have been a joke when the Liberals were in power, but they became quite relevant once the Conservatives took office, and Senate reform became a real possiblity. Then there's that pesky changing of provincial governments to factor in...


(and don't even bother with the "but he needs to change the Constitution, and the provinces will never allow it!" excuse. Not true.)


The Prime Minister went back on the word on the very day he was sworn in.


How so?


One wonders how, after making such a comment to the National Citizens Coalition, he can justify appointing Tory fundraisers and party insiders.


Way too easy: as head of the National Citizens Coalition, his responsibilities and priorities are quite different than as, say, an Albertan MP...and different yet again as Prime Minister of Canada.

The Prime Minister waited as long as possible before appointing any Senators, and you know it. He waited until the vacancies started to affect the ability of the Senate to function, and until a Liberal senator proposed legislation to *force* him to appoint them. He simply had no choice...but in typical Stephen Harper fashion, he didn't give in without a fight: he appointed people who agreed to a *fixed* term in the Senate, and to step down if necessary to take part in any future election that might be held.

Now THAT'S leadership, Brian. Something sorely lacking from your side.

Fred from BC said...

Sharonapple88 said...

Just wanted to add that granted the provinces didn't hold elections for the Senate, but no one held a gun to Harper's head to appoint people like fundraiser Irving Gerstein and his apparent political buddies Fabian Manning and Patrick Brazeau.


So...this is somehow different than Chretien's appointments of friends and fundraisers (and of course PMO insiders)? Who should he be choosing, then? His political enemies? He is appointing people he can trust to limit their terms voluntarily, for one thing.

And the Fortier appointment was to get him into government. No secret was made of this; where were you at the time that you managed to miss it?

Brian Busby said...

Fred, Stephen Harper appointed Michel Fortier on the very day he was sworn into office, despite a promise not to. It really is that simple. It was promise clearly expressed and contained no exceptions.

The PM has demonstrated time and again that he has no "psychic powers", but he most surely knew the positions of the various provincial governments. He's no dummy. Things change, of course. The PM managed to hold off further appointments for nearly three years, until the 2008 coalition threat. Since then, the floodgates have remained open.

True, there's a great difference between being President of the NCC and being Prime Minister of Canada, but I don't see this as an explanation or an excuse for his decision to appoint those he once described as "fundraisers and party insiders."

Don't know what you mean about leadership on my "side", Fred. I'm proudly independent.

Fred from BC said...

Brian Busby said...

Fred, Stephen Harper appointed Michel Fortier on the very day he was sworn into office, despite a promise not to. It really is that simple. It was promise clearly expressed and contained no exceptions.


Please find me a quote where Stephen Harper promised not to appoint Michel Fortier to the Senate. Please.


True, there's a great difference between being President of the NCC and being Prime Minister of Canada, but I don't see this as an explanation or an excuse for his decision to appoint those he once described as "fundraisers and party insiders."


That "great deal of difference" is exactly the explanation you seem to overlook. As President of the NCC, he had different responsibilities and represented different people than as an MP or as Prime Minister. His opinions may have been the same, but you don't always have the luxury of acting solely on your own opinions when you have responsibilities and obligations to a large number of other people. Right now, he has to act on behalf of the entire country, not just the NCC or Alberta...

Brian Busby said...

Oh, dear. Really? After all these days?

Fine, Fred. You write: "Please find me a quote where Stephen Harper promised not to appoint Michel Fortier to the Senate. Please."

During the 2005/2006 campaign the Conservative Party website proudly declared: "A Conservative government will not appoint to the senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people.” I see no indication that Michel Fortier was exempt.

Now, in response to my statement that becoming PM neither explains nor an excuses the decision to appoint "fundraisers and party insiders", you write:

"As President of the NCC, he had different responsibilities and represented different people than as an MP or as Prime Minister. His opinions may have been the same, but you don't always have the luxury of acting solely on your own opinions when you have responsibilities and obligations to a large number of other people. Right now, he has to act on behalf of the entire country, not just the NCC or Alberta..."

So, we have a PM who goes against his own opinions in appointing fundraisers. We have a PM who you say is fulfilling responsibilities and obligations in appointing fundraisers and party insiders. And, we have a PM who "has to act on behalf of the entire country, not just the NCC or Alberta" in appointing fundraisers and party insiders.

Incredible. Such a weak man.

I'm curious to know how in appointing fundraisers and party insiders our PM is acting on behalf of the country. Surely there are enough qualified Canadians out there who are not fundraisers and party insiders.

Fred from BC said...

Brian Busby said...

Oh, dear. Really? After all these days?


Really. You think I hang around hear waiting for a response? Don't flatter yourself...


During the 2005/2006 campaign the Conservative Party website proudly declared: "A Conservative government will not appoint to the senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people.” I see no indication that Michel Fortier was exempt.


That is NOT what you said. Here it is again:

Fred, Stephen Harper appointed Michel Fortier on the very day he was sworn into office, despite a promise not to. It really is that simple. It was promise clearly expressed and contained no exceptions.


Yes, it really is that simple: the Prime Minister never promised "not to appoint Michel Fortier to the Senate", did he? Quit playing dumb, Brian...


Now, in response to my statement that becoming PM neither explains nor an excuses the decision to appoint "fundraisers and party insiders", you write:

"As President of the NCC, he had different responsibilities and represented different people than as an MP or as Prime Minister. His opinions may have been the same, but you don't always have the luxury of acting solely on your own opinions when you have responsibilities and obligations to a large number of other people. Right now, he has to act on behalf of the entire country, not just the NCC or Alberta..."

So, we have a PM who goes against his own opinions in appointing fundraisers.



Yes, if it's for the good of the country. Why does that surprise you so much?


We have a PM who you say is fulfilling responsibilities and obligations in appointing fundraisers and party insiders.


Yes(leaving aside the unintentional hilarity of your attempt to use "fundraisers and insiders" as an insult; who else have Prime Ministers ever appointed? ). Even if the majority of them were indeed "fundraisers and party insiders", the Prime Minister had a responsibility to
ensure the continued functionality of the Senate, and a Liberal senator had just proposed a bill to *force* the PM to make those appointments anyway.


And, we have a PM who "has to act on behalf of the entire country, not just the NCC or Alberta" in appointing fundraisers and party insiders.

Incredible. Such a weak man.



That "weak man" is currently presiding over the longest minority government in Canadian history. His willingness to set aside his own personal opinions and act for the greater good is only one of the many reasons for his continued success. Common sense and logic may be alien to you and your NDP buddies, Brian, but thankfully our Prime Minister will always take the pragmatic and sensible course of action...

Fred from BC said...

Brian Busby said...

Oh, dear. Really? After all these days?


Really. You think I hang around hear waiting for a response? Don't flatter yourself...


During the 2005/2006 campaign the Conservative Party website proudly declared: "A Conservative government will not appoint to the senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people.” I see no indication that Michel Fortier was exempt.


That is NOT what you said. Here it is again:

Fred, Stephen Harper appointed Michel Fortier on the very day he was sworn into office, despite a promise not to. It really is that simple. It was promise clearly expressed and contained no exceptions.


Yes, it really is that simple: the Prime Minister never promised "not to appoint Michel Fortier to the Senate", did he? Quit playing dumb, Brian...


Now, in response to my statement that becoming PM neither explains nor an excuses the decision to appoint "fundraisers and party insiders", you write:

"As President of the NCC, he had different responsibilities and represented different people than as an MP or as Prime Minister. His opinions may have been the same, but you don't always have the luxury of acting solely on your own opinions when you have responsibilities and obligations to a large number of other people. Right now, he has to act on behalf of the entire country, not just the NCC or Alberta..."

So, we have a PM who goes against his own opinions in appointing fundraisers.



Yes, if it's for the good of the country. Why does that surprise you so much?


We have a PM who you say is fulfilling responsibilities and obligations in appointing fundraisers and party insiders.


Yes(leaving aside the unintentional hilarity of your attempt to use "fundraisers and insiders" as an insult; who else have Prime Ministers ever appointed? ). Even if the majority of them were indeed "fundraisers and party insiders", the Prime Minister had a responsibility to
ensure the continued functionality of the Senate, and a Liberal senator had just proposed a bill to *force* the PM to make those appointments anyway.


And, we have a PM who "has to act on behalf of the entire country, not just the NCC or Alberta" in appointing fundraisers and party insiders.

Incredible. Such a weak man.



That "weak man" is currently presiding over the longest minority government in Canadian history. His willingness to set aside his own personal opinions and act for the greater good is only one of the many reasons for his continued success. Common sense and logic may be alien to you and your NDP buddies, Brian, but thankfully our Prime Minister will always take the pragmatic and sensible course of action...

Fred from BC said...

Brian Busby said...

Oh, dear. Really? After all these days?


Really. You think I hang around hear waiting for a response? Don't flatter yourself...


During the 2005/2006 campaign the Conservative Party website proudly declared: "A Conservative government will not appoint to the senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people.” I see no indication that Michel Fortier was exempt.


That is NOT what you said. Here it is again:

Fred, Stephen Harper appointed Michel Fortier on the very day he was sworn into office, despite a promise not to. It really is that simple. It was promise clearly expressed and contained no exceptions.


Yes, it really is that simple: the Prime Minister never promised "not to appoint Michel Fortier to the Senate", did he? Quit playing dumb, Brian...


Now, in response to my statement that becoming PM neither explains nor an excuses the decision to appoint "fundraisers and party insiders", you write:

"As President of the NCC, he had different responsibilities and represented different people than as an MP or as Prime Minister. His opinions may have been the same, but you don't always have the luxury of acting solely on your own opinions when you have responsibilities and obligations to a large number of other people. Right now, he has to act on behalf of the entire country, not just the NCC or Alberta..."

So, we have a PM who goes against his own opinions in appointing fundraisers.



Yes, if it's for the good of the country. Why does that surprise you so much?

Fred from BC said...

Brian Busby said...


We have a PM who you say is fulfilling responsibilities and obligations in appointing fundraisers and party insiders.


Yes, exactly (leaving aside the unintentional hilarity of your attempt to use "fundraisers and insiders" as an insult; who else have Prime Ministers ever appointed? Their political enemies? People they can't trust? Grow up, Brian..). Even if the majority of them were indeed "fundraisers and party insiders", the Prime Minister had a responsibility to
ensure the continued functionality of the Senate, and a Liberal senator had just proposed a bill to *force* the PM to make those appointments anyway.


And, we have a PM who "has to act on behalf of the entire country, not just the NCC or Alberta" in appointing fundraisers and party insiders.

Incredible. Such a weak man.



That "weak man" is currently presiding over the longest minority government in Canadian history. His willingness to set aside his own personal opinions and act for the greater good is only one of the many reasons for his continued success. Common sense and logic may be alien to you and your NDP buddies, Brian, but thankfully our Prime Minister will always take the pragmatic and sensible course of action...