Friday, February 10, 2006

Keeping it real

Babble on.

Go Garth.

Babble off.


At 11:00 a.m., Blogger GenX at 40 said...

Garth is the new rat pack and he aims 360 degrees. You Ben and I agree on this apparently. There is hope for the future.

At 11:45 a.m., Blogger Greg Staples said...

Did you not get the memo? Do not talk about this...

At 2:30 p.m., Blogger eugene plawiuk said...

Watch out for Analogue

At 4:35 p.m., Blogger Dave said...

Can you imagine how much more fun the blogstavaganza would have been had been held this weekend? The hsouting matches probably would have had us kicked out in under an hour.

At 7:35 p.m., Blogger Paul said...

I can only hope that you similarly encourage every social conservative to debate the merits of abortion legislation, repeal of same sex marriage, and other similar initiatives which the Party democratically chose to specifically not support in the media instead of in the caucus room.

After all, electing Liberals is what we really want, isn't it? Ensuring that none the the proposed reforms ever find the force of law?

Garth has demonstrated that he has no respect for democracy: the Party Leadership, democratically selected, made a decision that was in their power to make, and his first thought as a Member of that governing party is to undermine it publicly? To let the minority who support him (Turner) claim to rule over the majority?

At 10:51 p.m., Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Hey "Paul" - sock puppets aren't welcome here. One alias is all you're allowed.

Oh, and right-wing trolling will get you deleted the same way left-wing trolling does.

At 11:55 p.m., Blogger Paul said...

What are you talking about? I have only ever posted under my name. No aliases, ever.

And if someone has the temerity to suggest that this isn't the only topic about which there is likely to be public disagreement about policy directions - that it is important for MPs such as Garth Turner to respect the democratic processes of the Conservative Party as much as it is for the rest of caucus, that you threaten to delete such comments?

Have you become so ill-prepared to deal with polite discourse from anyone who might question the wisdom of your support for such behaviour?

Far be it from me to ever disagree with you in the future. Please be so kind as to let me know what my opinion is supposed to be.

At 12:33 a.m., Blogger GenX at 40 said...

Maybe it is because your words...

"Garth has demonstrated that he has no respect for democracy"

...makes absolutely no sense. Garth (who I never would have voted for being an NDPer) spoke a truth - he said what he stood for in the election stands after the election. Wow. Democracy within "The Party" is not really democracy - it is oligarchy. Because 4.5 days have already given us all the yips, Little Stevie has about 5 to 25 days to turn around his ship and get it back onto the theme of open and transparent government. Folk like you who mistake democracy within a party with democracy are what gets us in this mess every time.

So what your opinion ought to be, seeing as you need to be told, is credible. Better luck next time.

At 12:36 a.m., Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

My mistake, Paul - I read a number wrong.

I understand the need for caucus solidarity on some matters, but I don't believe that this is one of them. We don't want a bunch of trained Liberal seals on the government benches, with blue ties instead of red.

Our party campaigned on doing things differently in Ottawa. Show me a single Conservative who campaigned on unelected cabinet appointments and switch-before-the-swearing-in ministers. Oh, I know Harper didn't rule it out, but if it caught this much of the party faithful off guard - including many in his own caucus - you can't claim this was the plan all along.

There's a time to be a good soldier and shut up when the orders come down, and that's most of the time. But there's also a time to say "With respect, no sir." It's always a judgement call when you do it, and you always have to be willing to pay the price if you're wrong - and sometimes if you're right.

Turner's taking a stand. You might find it foolish and wrongheaded, but I agree with him.

At 12:58 a.m., Blogger Paul said...

[Forgive me for lashing out in response to what appears to have been a simple error. I apologize.]

But there's also a time to say "With respect, no sir."

I absolutely agree. There's also a place. And that place is in caucus, not in the press. Some people actually think that unless you disagree in the papers that you don't disagree at all! That every discussion must be mediated by the media. Ridiculous!

Garth acknowledges publicly that he was told how and when to raise such a discussion, and then he persists in dragging the discussion through the media.

As for my comment about his (limited) respect for democracy: it was a bit strong, but I am furious over his behaviour. Every Canadian wants him (and every MP) to represent the views of his constituents. But there are ways that he can do that and still show respect for his democratically elected Party leader and caucus colleagues whom he has hung out to dry.

He is also fully aware that Bill C-251 failed in the House: the issue has been discussed, yet he is unwilling to recognize that result.

He could have said, "I don't understand this, but my democratically selected Prime Minister has the authority to take this action at this time." No more. He then proceeds into caucus to raise his concerns with his colleagues.

Instead, he has forced everyone to take a position either with him or with the Prime Minister, on an issue and at a time that doesn't need to have been so publicly divisive.

I have not a shred of doubt that other MPs are taking a stand. But they are doing so in a forum in which they can remain effective.

This is not the only issue over which there will be disagreement among Conservative MPs. This behaviour from Garth Turner does not provide a positive example for others to follow.

At 10:02 a.m., Blogger GenX at 40 said...

Fair enough and well put but what is up with Harper's leadership skills that this happened. Did he set out rules for communication for all MPs during the recruitment process? One would have thought that after his treatment of the strong headed Stronach in the days before she quit he might have learned something. Not being a Tory myself, then, there is the prospect of Turner - having been now told he has no place in future plans - becomes the new rat pack or even the new Chuck Cadman. Why wouldn't he?

At 11:19 a.m., Blogger Babbling Brooks said... was a bit strong, but I am furious over his behaviour.

I appreciate your honesty, Paul. Please understand that this is how I feel about the Emerson appointment.

At 2:15 p.m., Blogger MB said...

People have a right to disagree and be upset, but MP's must keep it in caucus, not the media.

That said, sometimes you must take a stand and principle must trump loyalty. However, is this the hill you want to die on?

You can choose to die only once, and I think Garth has wasted all his political capital on a somewhat minor issue, compared to all the others the conservatives want to implement.

It is his capitla to spend, so more power to him. I see no upside on this for Garth, and if he thinks this is so wrong, how does he plan to fix it by mouthing off?

Does he feel he will have more results out of caucas than in? How will sitting as a independant help?

Perhaps it is me, but I fail to see how his actions are going to help and he just comes off looking like a media hound.

At 8:57 p.m., Blogger PR said...

Swell. A backbench MP builds his own media reputation at the expense of the party in it's second week in office and you encourage him.

If I hear Garth say "my principles" one more time, I think I'm going to barf.

At 9:39 p.m., Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Barf all you want, Peter, as long as it's not in my comments section. It's covered in enough crap from Anonalogue as it is.

At 10:44 p.m., Blogger PR said...

I'll try to keep my trolling tendencies in check, thanks.

In the meantime, I'm wondering which Garth you're encouraging here: Garth #1 who wants to be able to stand up to the leader or Garth #2 who wants to introduce legislation meant to force an MP to resign when he leaves his caucus, removing an important method of...standing up to the party leader?

Furthermore, do you agree with Garth #1, who is criticizing Emerson for bolting his party, or Garth #2, who is contemplating...bolting his party?

And just to clarify: You're encouraging Garth when he comes out in favour of criminal investigation of a former Tory prime minister because, wait for it, "the media are upset"?

Exactly what kind of a guy are you aligning yourself with here?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home