I don't see what your problem is with Cadman using the power of being an independant MP to further his causes. Isn't that what we expect of all politicians? Do we not want them to use what cards they are dealt to try and further our agendas? It was his constituents that said they didn't want an election, so if I was the PM I wouldn't have offered him anything knowing that he was going to vote with the government.
I think you are just moaning that he decided against the Conservative cause. Make the distincion between politics and partisan politics.
There are higher principles then Cadman's pet projects. The Libs ignored parliamentary tradition and waited 10 days to call a confidence vote. During that ten days, they did everything possible to bribe MP's in order to maintain their gripe on power. This is typical of a tin pot bannana republic and should not happen in Canada.
The reason I am "moaning" is that Cadman does not realize that democracy is being assauted by the Libs. This must be defended and should take precedence over his victims rights legislation.
Besides, if you knew me, you would know that I do not really support the Conservative cause. They are, at present, the closest party to my beliefs, but their are many things I would change about their platform.
There is nothing more important than protecting our democracy. The Libs attacked and destroyed a bit of freedom last week. This type of behaviour should be above party politics, and all MP's (including Libs), if they were true defenders of democracy, should have voted to end this government and defend Canada.
The fact that the Libs would go so far as to damage democracy in Canada just to save their own hide will do more to destroy Canada then any separatist ever could.
There was a serious injustice done to the parliamentary process last week, no question. But the Liberal's behaviour in hijacking democracy is not he same issue as Cadman negotiating. The "Liberal gripe on power" is a question for the voters. I like that expression, actually, I think I will use it.
I disagree with your assessment of Cadman's behaviour, not that I am either for or against him personally. It is not up to him to decide when the votes are held or in what context that is decided. He was probably approached about what the government could do for him that would gain his consideration. If he based his vote solely on that basis then it would be wrong because he was obligated to vote the way his constituents wanted him to since he does not have a party policy to guide him. But if he simply used that opportunity to raise awareness of issues that are close to him and still voted the way his riding wanted then wherein lies his error? At times like these it is the independents that get political leverage, and we expect them to use it.
Defending democracy is a very grey issue.
Politics is
pol·i·tics Pronunciation: 'pä-l&-"tiks
1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
By the definition above Cadman employed politics to further his issues. I believe in Machiavelli, the ends justifies the means. And yes if the Liberals don't get voted out then there dirty politics justified the means.
de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government 3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. 4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
If you want to count all the voters that voted for the Liberals, Conservatives, etc. then if more of them voted for the Liberals overall then that means they represent the democracy; rule of the majority. The rest of parlimentary procedure and niceities are irrelevant.
What you are mad at is the dirty politics, but what you are claming is that democracy is in jeopardy. If you think that the dirty politics is unworthy of representatives of the democracy then I agree, but if you think that Cadman using politics when he had the chance is wrong then I disagree with you.
I just read Ezra Levant's article on Cadman and how he thinks her betrayal is worse than Belinda Stronach's. Now Ezra makes a case for treachery by illuminating the personal history of how Cadman used to be from his own experience but he does not come out with any factual basis upon which to justify his claims. He says that Cadman's riding of Surrey surely does not want to keep the Liberals...well wouldn't a poll from his riding settle the matter outright?
You know, this is the kind of rabid politics that the Conservatives practise that leaves a lot of normal non-Fiberal Canadians turned off by the idea of voting for the Conservatives. IF Conservatives could stick to the facts and use a little more wit I think that the public would at least consider changing government. But when normal people, I mean those that do not spend their lives fuming about politics, see this sort of behaviour it tends to change their mind. If the only distinguishing feature between a Fiberal and a Conservative is the colour of tie then there really isn't a choice for most and they take the utilitarian approach and keep with the Devil they know.
You had a post about what the Conservatives should do that would make them a better alternative, then I would suggest that rather than stifling dissent and engaging in right wing viewpoints, they should kick out the rabid elements and become an centrist party. These days, people do not take the Communists seriously, so why should they take the far right wing seriously either. And if the Conservatives cannot realize that people do not want to turn back social legislation 50 years then they really have no future. Small C conservatives who are fiscally responsible but socially Liberal are the ones that centrists, i.e. voters, can relate to and all the blather and bluster and claims that "the tide is turning" have borne no fruit because people out there know that inside the conservative party lurk ultra right wing radicals who want to invovle the government in personal affairs, like abortion or same sex marriage.
Conservatives like Arnold Schwarzenegger appeal to voters not just because they cannot be bought but that they are not scary on social issues. Arnie's only tough stance on social issues is illiegal immigrants which I understand is a hot topic in California. The Fiberals have used that to beat up on Conservatives because there is a kernel of truth. And hacks like Ezra prove it everytime they work without facts to smear people.
There is a definition that I think the Conservatives should adopt:
Main Entry: Tory Democracy Function: noun : a political philosophy advocating preservation of established institutions and traditional principles combined with political democracy and a social and economic program designed to benefit the common man
I think if the Conservatives would preach Tory democracy instead of duck issues then it would make it more palatable to the voters. I think that rather than fearing that a Conservative government would outlaw abortion, they should get the sense that a Conservative government would blow in to Ottawa and clean house on the bureaucracy and waste and inefficiency in the system and spend time fiding ways to disinvolve government where possible. A Tory govenment could make a bold promise to scrap the GST and make it stick with fiscal responsibility.
If they want to show up Paul Martin as a hack and a poor rich kid wannabe, they should focus their creativity on ways to in fact govern better while at the same time hound the Liberals on their arrogance and corruption. Make the distinction a positive one and not a choice between evils.
4 comments:
I don't see what your problem is with Cadman using the power of being an independant MP to further his causes. Isn't that what we expect of all politicians? Do we not want them to use what cards they are dealt to try and further our agendas? It was his constituents that said they didn't want an election, so if I was the PM I wouldn't have offered him anything knowing that he was going to vote with the government.
I think you are just moaning that he decided against the Conservative cause. Make the distincion between politics and partisan politics.
William Frobisher
Bill,
There are higher principles then Cadman's pet projects. The Libs ignored parliamentary tradition and waited 10 days to call a confidence vote. During that ten days, they did everything possible to bribe MP's in order to maintain their gripe on power. This is typical of a tin pot bannana republic and should not happen in Canada.
The reason I am "moaning" is that Cadman does not realize that democracy is being assauted by the Libs. This must be defended and should take precedence over his victims rights legislation.
Besides, if you knew me, you would know that I do not really support the Conservative cause. They are, at present, the closest party to my beliefs, but their are many things I would change about their platform.
There is nothing more important than protecting our democracy. The Libs attacked and destroyed a bit of freedom last week. This type of behaviour should be above party politics, and all MP's (including Libs), if they were true defenders of democracy, should have voted to end this government and defend Canada.
The fact that the Libs would go so far as to damage democracy in Canada just to save their own hide will do more to destroy Canada then any separatist ever could.
Marcel;
There was a serious injustice done to the parliamentary process last week, no question. But the Liberal's behaviour in hijacking democracy is not he same issue as Cadman negotiating. The "Liberal gripe on power" is a question for the voters. I like that expression, actually, I think I will use it.
I disagree with your assessment of Cadman's behaviour, not that I am either for or against him personally. It is not up to him to decide when the votes are held or in what context that is decided. He was probably approached about what the government could do for him that would gain his consideration. If he based his vote solely on that basis then it would be wrong because he was obligated to vote the way his constituents wanted him to since he does not have a party policy to guide him. But if he simply used that opportunity to raise awareness of issues that are close to him and still voted the way his riding wanted then wherein lies his error? At times like these it is the independents that get political leverage, and we expect them to use it.
Defending democracy is a very grey issue.
Politics is
pol·i·tics
Pronunciation: 'pä-l&-"tiks
1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
By the definition above Cadman employed politics to further his issues. I believe in Machiavelli, the ends justifies the means. And yes if the Liberals don't get voted out then there dirty politics justified the means.
de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
If you want to count all the voters that voted for the Liberals, Conservatives, etc. then if more of them voted for the Liberals overall then that means they represent the democracy; rule of the majority. The rest of parlimentary procedure and niceities are irrelevant.
What you are mad at is the dirty politics, but what you are claming is that democracy is in jeopardy. If you think that the dirty politics is unworthy of representatives of the democracy then I agree, but if you think that Cadman using politics when he had the chance is wrong then I disagree with you.
Bill
I just read Ezra Levant's article on Cadman and how he thinks her betrayal is worse than Belinda Stronach's. Now Ezra makes a case for treachery by illuminating the personal history of how Cadman used to be from his own experience but he does not come out with any factual basis upon which to justify his claims. He says that Cadman's riding of Surrey surely does not want to keep the Liberals...well wouldn't a poll from his riding settle the matter outright?
You know, this is the kind of rabid politics that the Conservatives practise that leaves a lot of normal non-Fiberal Canadians turned off by the idea of voting for the Conservatives. IF Conservatives could stick to the facts and use a little more wit I think that the public would at least consider changing government. But when normal people, I mean those that do not spend their lives fuming about politics, see this sort of behaviour it tends to change their mind. If the only distinguishing feature between a Fiberal and a Conservative is the colour of tie then there really isn't a choice for most and they take the utilitarian approach and keep with the Devil they know.
You had a post about what the Conservatives should do that would make them a better alternative, then I would suggest that rather than stifling dissent and engaging in right wing viewpoints, they should kick out the rabid elements and become an centrist party. These days, people do not take the Communists seriously, so why should they take the far right wing seriously either. And if the Conservatives cannot realize that people do not want to turn back social legislation 50 years then they really have no future. Small C conservatives who are fiscally responsible but socially Liberal are the ones that centrists, i.e. voters, can relate to and all the blather and bluster and claims that "the tide is turning" have borne no fruit because people out there know that inside the conservative party lurk ultra right wing radicals who want to invovle the government in personal affairs, like abortion or same sex marriage.
Conservatives like Arnold Schwarzenegger appeal to voters not just because they cannot be bought but that they are not scary on social issues. Arnie's only tough stance on social issues is illiegal immigrants which I understand is a hot topic in California. The Fiberals have used that to beat up on Conservatives because there is a kernel of truth. And hacks like Ezra prove it everytime they work without facts to smear people.
There is a definition that I think the Conservatives should adopt:
Main Entry: Tory Democracy
Function: noun
: a political philosophy advocating preservation of established institutions and traditional principles combined with political democracy and a social and economic program designed to benefit the common man
I think if the Conservatives would preach Tory democracy instead of duck issues then it would make it more palatable to the voters. I think that rather than fearing that a Conservative government would outlaw abortion, they should get the sense that a Conservative government would blow in to Ottawa and clean house on the bureaucracy and waste and inefficiency in the system and spend time fiding ways to disinvolve government where possible. A Tory govenment could make a bold promise to scrap the GST and make it stick with fiscal responsibility.
If they want to show up Paul Martin as a hack and a poor rich kid wannabe, they should focus their creativity on ways to in fact govern better while at the same time hound the Liberals on their arrogance and corruption. Make the distinction a positive one and not a choice between evils.
Bill
Post a Comment