Guergis is crying on TV again

[WWWTT]

Too bad everyone's forgetting that Harper caved in to the feeding frenzy of opposition demands that he can her... hypocrites !

Did the opposition paries give her a cabinet portfolio,did the opposition ask for her removal from caucus,I remember hearing them say removal from cabinet,not caucus!

WWWTT

[Bryan]

Harper must be pulling every hair out of his freakin right wing head by now watching the CBC.

I doubt it, He's probably looking forward to Monday.

[WWWTT]

I doubt it, He's probably looking forward to Monday.

Looking forward to moving out of his house in Ottawa back to Toronto and wearing his underwear all day and watching the weather network.

Maybe he'll have a chance to learn a few more Beatle songs and work on improving his voice

WWWTT

[scribblet]

Pretty well.

I recall the Liberals for weeks in the House demanding her head on a platter. Imagine for a minute, had Harper not booted her or welcomed her back following a hiatus. But that didn't happen and she stayed out. And now that Guergis has given her teary press conference, they're championing Guergis' cause, accusing Harper of being anti-women or worse. So the Liberals take a position straddling both sides of the same matter, for and against, and now they want us to believe they were and are right on both stances. It defies logic.

Totally agree, they screamed for her head and demanded she be gone, death by the political guillotine. Harper gave them what they wanted as a minority gov't co-operating with the opposition, everyone should be happy right - wrong, now those hypocrites say he shouldn't have done it !!! They can't have it both ways, but as usual they are playing it up in the media.

[WWWTT]

I don't know about you guys but usually the term given to this is called a "political gift"

And when one is given it is costumary for accepting it.

Guergis is trying to get re-elected as an independant and she will vote blindly for any conservative bill to weasel her way back into their caucus.

And judging from the media attention she's getting she is going to get re-elected,she will continue to blindly vote everything conservative and will allways be rejected and will be on TV every few months cluching a baby and crying.

Guergis is the gift that keeps giving.

WWWTT

[Battletoads]

Typical Harper Conservative, controlled by her base emotions.

[Bob]

I don't know where you get the idea the story is irrelevant. It clearly is relevant as the Prime Minister, who is asking everyone to give him the job again, canned her and tossed her out of caucus. So clearly the story is incredibly relevant. What seems to be pissing you off, from what I can tell, is that the story may, and I repeat may, have reflect poorly upon the leader of the party you support. But rather than just say that, you wring your hands and whine and snivel like some sort of pathetic five year old about the big ol' press pickin' on poor wittle Harper.

The best part about this is that I don't really see how it reflects all that badly on Harper. The Opposition wanted Guergis gone. His own caucus wanted her gone. Her husband was nailed with cocaine possession and had been trying to use his connections in Ottawa to get a business venture going. She was by all accounts an abrasive prima dona (that's longhand for miserable b*tch, by the way), a crappy cabinet minister and all in all a growing liability on the party. I don't think anyone should expect a party leader or caucus to have infinite patience with someone like Guergis, or to give her unlimited rope to hang herself, and some portion of the party's credibility along with her.

In the real world, firing someone because of unsubstantiated second-hand claims is not very nice, but politics operates by its own rules. Any party leader, and particularly a Prime Minister, when faced with a member of caucus who is in general a pain in the ass who is pissing off other members of the caucus, who has public hissy fits in airports indicating she's trying to throw her weight around to get her way, whose husband is increasingly being revealed as a drug-using scam artist, is hanging by a thread anyways, and in pops some private eye claiming she's up to all manner of nasty things, and you're damned right she's going to be given the boot from caucus, and faster than you can say "we demand her resignation".

It's not relevant because it's already an old story. Moreover, the story illustrates the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party and the NDP, given how they attacked Harper because of the allegations (even though he got rid of her) and then attacked Harper FOR getting rid of her. It's just empty drama without relevance to the election. The CBC is clearly committed to stupid journalism.

[Molly]

I don't know about you guys but usually the term given to this is called a "political gift"

And when one is given it is costumary for accepting it.

Guergis is trying to get re-elected as an independant and she will vote blindly for any conservative bill to weasel her way back into their caucus.

And judging from the media attention she's getting she is going to get re-elected,she will continue to blindly vote everything conservative and will allways be rejected and will be on TV every few months cluching a baby and crying.

Guergis is the gift that keeps giving.

WWWTT

[scribblet]

Did the opposition paries give her a cabinet portfolio,did the opposition ask for her removal from caucus,I remember hearing them say removal from cabinet,not caucus!

WWWTT

The opposition could not give her the portfolio, that was Harper, you know that, before allegations of wrong doing.

Stéphane Dion called for her resignation claiming she endangered his life by announcing his plan to visit a provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar. ( I kid you not) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/01/16/dion-afghanistan.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4da91b241cc85a0c,0 Harper defended her for some time, but caved in, in hind sight he should've only suspended her. Her weepy interview didn't go over well with me or many people I think. She's done now IMO.

If Guergis should be slamming anyone, it's the media, in particular the Star - a real case study of ethics in journalism, or lack thereof.

[Bryan]

Guergis has been an irritation in the CPC since the beginning,her removal was long overdue, the allegations (true or not) were just the final straw. They were serious enough that the PM had to distance himself from her and let the RCMP handle it. That she was exonerated by the RCMP doesn't change the fact that she was never a team player to begin with.

I'd never say never as to her coming back into the CPC fold, but she's not doing herself any favours by crying about it on TV. The best thing she could do is take her lumps, worry about getting re-elected, then prove that she's a good little "independent conservative" by voting with the CPC, and being quiet otherwise. If she can't at least do that, she's just burning her own bridge.

For now all I see is:

[ToadBrother]

Guergis has been an irritation in the CPC since the beginning,her removal was long overdue, the allegations (true or not) were just the final straw. They were serious enough that the PM had to distance himself from her and let the RCMP handle it. That she was exonerated by the RCMP doesn't change the fact that she was never a team player to begin with.

That's the word I heard. To put it politely, she was not liked by the rest of caucus.

I'd never say never as to her coming back into the CPC fold, but she's not doing herself any favours by crying about it on TV. The best thing she could do is take her lumps, worry about getting re-elected, then prove that she's a good little "independent conservative" by voting with the CPC, and being quiet otherwise. If she can't at least do that, she's just burning her own bridge.

I'd say her chances of returning to the fold, with unanswered questions about Jaffer still percolating around Ottawa, was unlikely. After the whole "Harper through me under a bus" routine, I'd say Iggy has a better chance of joining the Tory caucus than she does.

Like I said, she was a crappy minister (somebody pointed out her near-criminal idiocy of announcing Dion's secret trip to Afghanistan), a prima dona in caucus, had a husband whose dealings were, shall we say, grimy and slimy, so I can't imagine there were any tears shed for her. Her being turfed from caucus wasn't some version of John Nunziata's principled stand against the GST. She was thrown out because she was a liability, and an ever-growing one. No party leader would have done any differently when having to deal with a member of caucus in these circumstances. Harper did what he had to do, and for all the things I care to fault him for, throwing Guergis out isn't one of them.

[WWWTT]

The opposition could not give her the portfolio, that was Harper, you know that, before allegations of wrong doing.

Stéphane Dion called for her resignation claiming she endangered his life by announcing his plan to visit a provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar. ( I kid you not) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/01/16/dion-afghanistan.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4da91b241cc85a0c,0 Harper defended her for some time, but caved in, in hind sight he should've only suspended her. Her weepy interview didn't go over well with me or many people I think. She's done now IMO.

If Guergis should be slamming anyone, it's the media, in particular the Star - a real case study of ethics in journalism, or lack thereof.

I do not believe you have read many of my quotes here.

I never claimed that the opposition gave her a cabinet seat in the conservative flock.Harper did and this proves that Harper lacks good judgement.He is more concerned in being surrounded by "yes men" first,qualifications second.

As far as Guergis slamming the media,oh my God that would be like biting the hand that feeds you.Fat freakin chance that will ever happen

WWWTT

[Sir Bandelot]

It's not relevant because it's already an old story. Moreover, the story illustrates the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party and the NDP, given how they attacked Harper because of the allegations (even though he got rid of her) and then attacked Harper FOR getting rid of her. It's just empty drama without relevance to the election. The CBC is clearly committed to stupid journalism.

Actually I am appalled at the way she was treated because, while in the beginning of this controversy it seemed prudent to suspend her temporarily, once the allegations were shown to be unfounded I thought he should allow her to return to her post. Better still, don't make a judgement until all the facts are in. It seemed at that point that Mr. Harper over-reacted.

However, she never did sue the party which would have been reasonable to do, if in fact the claims against her are baseless. And that might tell us something about the situation. Sometimes deals are made behind closed doors, keep people quiet and minimize the damage to others that may be involved. What we see, through the media and through their soapbox speeches, is all just smoke and mirrors.

For me what took the cake was, the fake phonecalls in support of her, made by her staff.

[ToadBrother]

I do not believe you have read many of my quotes here.

I never claimed that the opposition gave her a cabinet seat in the conservative flock.Harper did and this proves that Harper lacks good judgement.He is more concerned in being surrounded by "yes men" first,qualifications second.

As far as Guergis slamming the media,oh my God that would be like biting the hand that feeds you.Fat freakin chance that will ever happen

WWWTT

If putting crappy people in cabinet was an indication of bad judgment, then I doubt there is a PM since William Pitt the Younger who had good judgment. In most cabinets, save for the core portfolios like Finance, the talents or capabilities of ministers comes second to other factors like gender, regional representation, popularity of proposed cabinet ministers and so on. Every government has had a few rotten apples. I don't see the Tories being worse off in this department than previous governments.

[Bryan]

If putting crappy people in cabinet was an indication of bad judgment, then I doubt there is a PM since William Pitt the Younger who had good judgment. In most cabinets, save for the core portfolios like Finance, the talents or capabilities of ministers comes second to other factors like gender, regional representation, popularity of proposed cabinet ministers and so on. Every government has had a few rotten apples. I don't see the Tories being worse off in this department than previous governments.

One of the few things that I think the US does right is actually HIRING the best person for the job for the important cabinet positions, rather than simply appoint someone because they got elected. What if the people you (as a PM) would want to head a given department are not the ones that got elected? You're forced to use someone you know damn-well is in over their heads?

I shudder to think how bad this could go with our divided Parliament, but I think that in theory, we should at least look at ALL elected members to see who is best at a given position, and offer the cabinet post to the one who could actually do it. I know people got really upset with David Emerson, but I think that was a great example of how things should get done.

[kimmy]

...so, what you guys are saying is that Helena wasn't really snorting cocaine off an escort's breasts after all?

I am totally going to have to rewrite the screenplay now.

-k

[ToadBrother]

...so, what you guys are saying is that Helena wasn't really snorting cocaine off an escort's breasts after all?

I am totally going to have to rewrite the screenplay now.

-k

No, what we're saying is you can't PROVE she did. Perhaps if you insert a crooked RCMP investigator taking offers of free meetings with Cabinet Ministers from Rahim Jaffer as bribes, you can make the whole thing work!

[ToadBrother]

One of the few things that I think the US does right is actually HIRING the best person for the job for the important cabinet positions, rather than simply appoint someone because they got elected. What if the people you (as a PM) would want to head a given department are not the ones that got elected? You're forced to use someone you know damn-well is in over their heads?

I shudder to think how bad this could go with our divided Parliament, but I think that in theory, we should at least look at ALL elected members to see who is best at a given position, and offer the cabinet post to the one who could actually do it. I know people got really upset with David Emerson, but I think that was a great example of how things should get done.

I wouldn't actually object to it at all. One must remember that the US based their cabinet system on the Westminster Cabinet system as it stood in the mid to late 18th century, where the convention of cabinet ministers being members of Parliament had not yet be established. Even now, it's not required that any member of cabinet in fact be a member of either the Commons or the Senate (for instance, the Premier of BC won't have a seat in the BC Legislature until May, and yet was the head of government from the minute Gordon Campbell stepped down).

It would still, unfortunately, require a constitutional change to make it a binding requirement, because, just like Senators, the appointment of Cabinet Ministers is a Royal Prerogative used on the advice of the Prime Minister. Still, having members of cabinet vetted by Parliament would be a very good thing.

[betsy]

For Harper to be really upset with her -that he doesn't even mention her name - there must be more to this than meets the eye, and I bet Harper just doesn't want to humiliate her any further.

Edited April 16, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

For Harper to be really upset with her -that he doesn't even mention her name - there must be more to this than meets the eye, and I bet Harper just doesn't want to humiliate her any further.

I imagine Harper would prefer her to find a tall cliff and jump off of it.

[WWWTT]

If putting crappy people in cabinet was an indication of bad judgment, then I doubt there is a PM since William Pitt the Younger who had good judgment. In most cabinets, save for the core portfolios like Finance, the talents or capabilities of ministers comes second to other factors like gender, regional representation, popularity of proposed cabinet ministers and so on. Every government has had a few rotten apples. I don't see the Tories being worse off in this department than previous governments.

Now hold on a second here,I agree about the core portfolios but Harper increased the cabinet to a record level.And Guergis has got to be the biggest thorn ever,thats got to count for something.

There will always be a difference of opinion between people in the same party and mistakes will happen.These things are not predictable,but Guergis?Man did this guy not have a good talk with her and see something in her?He picked her for all the wrong reasons and its come back to haunt him.He screwed up.

WWWTT

[kimmy]

Now hold on a second here,I agree about the core portfolios but Harper increased the cabinet to a record level.And Guergis has got to be the biggest thorn ever,thats got to count for something.

The biggest thorn ever?

Holy, some people have either short memories or a serious lack of perspective.

The grand sum of her sins consist of yelling at some airport security clowns, marrying an imbecile, and letting that imbecile use her phone and email to conduct personal business.

If she'd been in the Chretien-era cabinet, that track record would make her revered for her integrity.

-k

[ToadBrother]

Now hold on a second here,I agree about the core portfolios but Harper increased the cabinet to a record level.And Guergis has got to be the biggest thorn ever,thats got to count for something.

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for me to find worse ministers in Canadian history.

There will always be a difference of opinion between people in the same party and mistakes will happen.These things are not predictable,but Guergis?Man did this guy not have a good talk with her and see something in her?He picked her for all the wrong reasons and its come back to haunt him.He screwed up.

As someone who has been in a management position from time to time, sometimes you just don't know. More to the point, people do change for any number of reasons, and a star employee can sometimes turn into a trainwreck.

I simply cannot find much here to fault Harper with. She became a problem minister and problem MP, pissed off other members of caucus and generally was making the party look bad. Obviously we're not going to privy to any of the steps Harper took leading up to her ultimate being expelled, so in a way this analogous to the guy who gets fired and tells you "They had no reason, man! I was a great employee!" You never really here the management end of the story.

We know enough to know that her time in cabinet was hardly spectacular, that she had embarrassed the government, that she wasn't a team player, behaved like a prima dona to fellow members of caucus and to her own staff, and in the end even to some poor bastards at an airport. Couple that with the fact that her husband had come under a serious ethical and legal cloud, and you'd have to be pretty damned blind not to see what a trainwreck she was. Anyone in her position ought to have turned it down a notch or too, kept her head down and generally smiled and not ticked anybody off. In Guergis' case, she seemed to go the exact opposite.

And then comes the accusations. Yes, the RCMP ultimately found no evidence, but any leader in Harper's shoes is going to get rid of what has become a serious liability. Is it fair? No. Is it right? No. But when you become a politician, you sign up for some pretty strange and at times confusing and unfair terms of employment, in large part because politics is as much about perception as it is about action. And let me tell you, as with any other team, the management is going to be looking for reasons to get the a$$holes out, even if it is on flimsy grounds. That's what I think happened Guergis. And she shouldn't be too upset, even if she loses, she's got a damned nice pension coming to her.

Edited April 16, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Bob]

WWWTT is a perfect example of a partisan who attacks Harper with CBC talking points rather than for legitimate reasons. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Harper. The Guergis fiasco which is already a year-old and completely irrelevant, and simply being brought up because of lazy anti-CPC politics at the CBC. If you've got a beef with Harper, bring up something legitimate rather than a partisan talking point.

[ToadBrother]

WWWTT is a perfect example of a partisan who attacks Harper with CBC talking points rather than for legitimate reasons. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Harper. The Guergis fiasco which is already a year-old and completely irrelevant, and simply being brought up because of lazy anti-CPC politics at the CBC. If you've got a beef with Harper, bring up something legitimate rather than a partisan talking point.

You accuse WWWTT of being a partisan, and then turn around and giving an opposing partisan position.

In other words, your post is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.