« Home | Worst President Ever » | How many bounced cheques would you tolerate? » | kevvyd waits with baited breath... » | Why they don't allow cell phones in caucus » | Thoughts on Israel, Palestine, and terrorism » | Count Me Out » | My hovercraft is full of eels » | Billmon on Iran » | I Am Speechless... » | Rummy responds »

It takes an unprincipled one to know a partisan one...

(h/t to Briguy)
So David Emerson is surprised that Stephen Harper is a bit of a partisan bastard? Why on earth would he have expected otherwise? Emerson has apparently complained to a former aide that Harper is a (gasp!) "hard-ass" and (great Scot!) "has no people skills".

This has already been blogged at length by many others, so I won't dwell a great deal on it, but it leaves me with a few questions. If Emerson is so smart (and that's the cited reason Harper poached him - being a Vancouver-area MP had nothing to do with it!), how is it possible that he didn't see this Harper coming a mile down the track? After all, he basically had him pegged during the election campaign but walked across the floor anyway. What does it say about Emerson, the man? Did he have no faith in his own much-vaunted cranial capacity that he might have been wrong about Harper? Or was he gullible andflattered when Harper, the prime minister came knocking after the election? Or did he really believe that he has too much ability to serve merely as a little opposition MP?

In any case, it's a good thing we have his wife holding him hard to the grindstone. After all, he has a tremendously important job, one in which the first major project, softwood lumber, he's probably not going to be allowed to say word one on.

I really, really want to believe that our leaders and elected officials are smart - we need them to be. But it's so so so hard.

Before entering politics in 2004, Emerson was the president and CEO of Canfor. Emerson still has an "unregistered pension plan" as result of his service to the company.

What the hell is an "unregistered" pension plan? Can Emerson take money from the Canfor till at will? Does Canfor pay him occassionally for being a pal, if you know what I mean?

Are all you people following the Pied Piper? If you read the article carefully, you'll see that at the end Bob Klager, Emerson's communication director said that Emerson said no such thing. Why would you believe someone who has an ax to grind as opposed to someone who represents the minister? Never mind this partisan political B.S. As a human being, if someone tells you that your best friend said you were an a__hole, would you not want to hear from your friend directly before you made an assumption? Or would you call him and tell him never to darken your doorway again.

So, Harry, when Belinda Stronach says (herself, not through a rumour or a communications director) she crossed the floor becuase she could no longer support the CPC in what it had become, a conservative party taken over by SoCons and abandoning its fiscal-conservative roots, she is of course lying. It is more that ok for Conservative pundits to dismiss that and assume that she did it to gain a cabinet post, that she was power hungry or simply a "whore".

Ok I see how this game is played - if the Conservaties are on the recieing end of bad news or bad press, then you have to have all sorts of proof and nothing is to be believed, but if anyone else is, well then it must be true because anyone who is not Conservatie is jus bad.

We have libel laws that Mr. Emmerson can use if this were not true. I take it with a grain of salt considering the source, but I don't uterly dismiss it or take the work of a communications director as gold either.

Thanks for the comments, Mike. Yes, Harry, we have the word of one person against the word of another. One a former employee and the other a paid mouthpiece for Emerson, for whom this leak might prove damaging. Of course he denies it was said - but how can he? Is he with Emerson 24/7? There is no way he can possibly know what Emerson said unless it was said in his presence, therefore his statement can be taken as BS. For what it's worth, so can Epworth's, but as Mike points out, there are lible laws for that.

If I may play Devil's advocate (and I apologize to Kevvy for not pointing this out in my e-mail), the story _is_ based on the uncorroborated word of one ex-aide, and therefore doesn't really meet the test for most serious journalists (i.e. no second source). And the story did appear in the Toronto Star, which appears at times to be the official mouthpiece of the Liberal Party of Canada.

That said, I cooked up a bag of popcorn as soon as I saw the story. If true, will unprincipled bastard get 20 lashes? Or worse, will he be forced to attend a fossil-hunting field trip with Stockwell Day? Tee-hee.


I knew the "risks" in posting as it says pretty clearly in the article that it is from one source. However, these comments came out 24 hours ago and there has been no official response from his office save the "he didn't say that stuff" one which is easily discreditable.

Besides, it fun stuff.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link