blevkog

I refer, of course to Peter Mackay being forced to defend the defection of Unprincipled Bastard to the Conservatives amid comparisons to the similar defection of his former sweetie Belinda. Naturally, since the principle of sticking your mates in the back is generally pretty consistent from one event to the other he has to find some hairs to split to differentiate. Here is what he said:

What David Emerson did, I would suggest, is different, in the sense that he has done this early after the election in hopes of continuing the important work that he was doing inside a government which he was obviously very disillusioned with.

Unlike other moves, it didn't happen at a critical juncture that propped the government up. There wasn't that sense that there was strict reward or leadership ambition.

This is such utter tripe that it's hard to see where to start. I can almost see poor Peter pulling the words out and trying to haul them back in at the same time. But, for fun, let's try to see where he's coming from.

First, the timing is imprtant, and he's right, there is a definite difference between jamming your mates when you know it's going to hurt (Belinda) and jamming them when it's convenient for you (David). Naturally, they are both odious, but neither is ethically purer than the other. Stronach jumped ship to feather her nest after coming to the realization that her leadership ambitions were thwarted, which, when it comes right down to it is pretty much what Emerson did for his ministerial post.

Alas, according to Peter, Emerson just had to continue with the critical work he was doing while in government. Well, Peter, hate to say this but there are probably a few dozen other Liberals who would tell you the same thing, so unless you're about to cede every portfolio back over to the Libs, you might wanna can this line of thought.

He then goes on to explain that Emerson was "obviously" disillusioned, implying somehow both that this makes it okay and that Stronach was not disillusioned. I don't know where to go with this except to say that it is an empty and meaningless statement.

And finally, at last, the coup de grace for Peter's argument -

There wasn't that sense that there was strict reward or leadership ambition

Bwahahaha - you have just got to be kidding! Perhaps not leadership per se, but reward? THe moment David Emerson says "I'll be minister, you keep the salary", I'll believe that he crossed without promise of reward.

Peter is a lawyer and you just have to know that this is his way of defending Harper against the NDP call to the ethics commissionser I mentioned earlier.

Posted by kevvyd on Monday, February 13, 2006 at 10:38 PM | Permalink