Koolaidists versus Ragenistas
Babble on.
Kelvin at Plum Blossoms takes all of us Tories to task:
The conservative response to the Harper cabinet has seemed to coalesce into two camps: the Kool-Aid drinkers, exemplified by this SDA post, and the raging righteous rightists, who Damian B has been cataloging quite thoroughly. Both sides seem completely convinced that they're right and the others are a bunch of sellouts.
It's starting to piss me off.
His take on the whole mess is worth reading, not because his position is right - because I don't think it is - but because it's good to see someone articulate clearly why they're not in one camp or another.
Babble off.
posted by Babbling Brooks @ 9:34 a.m.
5 comments
5 Comments:
Damian:
Hmm... Raging Rightists, eh?
Well, you referred to me at one point as being a critic of Harper's moves, which I am, but it isn't because I'm a "raging rightist" (I am a former Liberal / Red Tory). It is because, as Andrew Coyne so eloquently pointed out today, I was led to believe that the Harper government would be different. That principles and ethics would matter, as opposed to just being expedient catch-phrases.
That is not a "raging rightist" position. That is a position that all Canadians should hold. It also happens to be the one that Harper and the Conservatives promised would form the core of their government.
That's why I was disappointed, and angry. We were promised better, we deserve better, and Harper is capable of better.
Paul
Oh, I made sure my ass was on the list before I even posted this, Flea.
Boy, ferrethouse, you sound just like Janke: blame Conservative dissenters for Harper's wrongheaded cabinet choices.
If he's having a bad week, he needs to look not into the blogosphere, but into the mirror for the cause of it.
A leader is a person who has both the good judgment required to make the right decisions in the first place, but also the integrity and the guts to step forward and take responsibility when he makes the wrong one (as we all do, sooner or later).
Harper has flunked both of those tests, badly, on the cabinet question. The real problem is that he shows no signs of realizing that what he did was wrong.
Does it mean his whole government is going to go down the tubes? Of course not. But it isn't a good start, and he'll have to work hard to gain back some of the trust that he's squandered.
Frankly, I've thought from the get-go that the Fortier appointment to the Senate was the more troublesome of the two.
Paul
Well I'm sincerely thankful that someone who disagrees with me would link to me, and indeed claim that I blogged clearly, when all I saw in front of me at the time was incoherent rambling.
I was actually on the record on the past few posts as being quite critical of the appointments, but I think the whole echo chamber effect was starting to get a bit overboard when I read people musing about how a dozen of Tories should ransom for a byelection by going to the Grits, or things like that.
Paul K, I don't think we're that far apart. I think Harper can do better too (I said it rather early on), but that's why the blind rage was counterproductive and misdirected.
Harper needed a smack upside the head, not a freaking head shot with a baseball bat.
I think it was when Coyne posted the "Coventry" post praising Garth that really just knocked me off that bandwagon. I have no sympathy for Garth's antics.
Post a Comment
<< Home