Rotten is the only verdict for Paul

lenwick · January 2, 2006

:angry:

Charles AdlerSat, December 31, 2005

By CHARLES ADLER

Breaking News: We have before us a political murder-suicide story, the likes of which we have never witnessed in Canada.

Paul Martin is murdering the Liberal government of which he is the boss, while at the same time killing his chances of becoming anything more than a footnote in Canadian history. He is now only weeks away from becoming another John Turner, a man who barely had time to run a series of downs before the final gun sounded.

While it may be impolite to put a person on trial before the victim has expired, this ain't court. It's a column.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the name of the accused is Paul Martin. We used to call him Paul Martin Junior, in the days when his dad, a generation ago, was a senior cabinet minister with elegance and eloquence. The accused is an apple that has fallen very far from the tree. At this moment, he cannot even see the tree without accessing nuclear-powered binoculars.

Permit yourself to think of his graceful, respected late father as Apple Tree and the accused as Rotten Apple.

Apple Tree surrounded himself by staffers who had great taste and dignity. They knew that the senior minister who always aspired to the highest standards of public service, demanded the same of the people closest to him.

But Rotten Apple had different preferences. For nearly a decade, he played on a team led by the linguistically rancid Jean Chretien. But nobody close to Chretien would ever make the mistake of calling Rotten Apple a team player. They were aware that Rotten was frequently using his worms to crawl into the computers and cellphones and, most recently, the Blackberries of key media soldiers.

For years the soldiers, on the assumption that some day Rotten would be king, accommodated his proclivities and fetishes. They were prepared to be treated like toadies in return for access to the secrets of power once Rotten replaced Rancid.

But who would have thunk that by the time the changing of the guard had taken place there would be so much sewer gas in the house called Liberal, that all Rotten could do was distance himself from Rancid? He invited one of the good old Gomers of the Quebec bench to run interference for him. Gomer hired a crony of former prime minister Brian Mulroney's to prosecute the Chretien crowd.

Gomer was the dutiful gopher that Rotten wanted him to be. He tied a noose around Rancid and then being the dutiful gopher that he was born to be, delivered unto Rotten the Holy Grail of legal innocence -- personal exoneration.

Having been personally exonerated, Rotten's gang decided that they now had what they needed to scorch the immoral earth that their opponent Stephen Harper walked on. Of great assistance to the artificially enthusiastic Rotten was the contrast of an opponent, Harper, whose personality temperature was colder than that of the average cadaver. Rotten was preparing to smite Cadaver with a series of TV ads crafted to convey the impression to innocent citizens that if Cadaver ever ruled the dominion, Canada would morph into Alabama.

But Rotten's Christmas of 2005 ended abruptly with a Boxing Day Bang when a certain headline became quickly seared into the minds of the innocents: RCMP criminal investigation.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: On Jan. 23, you are being asked to return a verdict of Rotten in the First Degree.

The Liberals don't deserve to win we heard all the promises 10 yrs ago they never keep them

PocketRocket · January 2, 2006

So what we have here is a columnist who thinks he's a wit (he's half-right) calling names, but saying nothing of substance, and another guy(girl???) who posts the text of the column without offering any specifics, or an opinion.

Gotta be at least a dozen similar threads started in the past 2 or 3 days.

I know, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I felt I needed to make this observation.

newbie · January 2, 2006

Oh, it's that darn left media again.

scribblet · January 2, 2006

So what we have here is a columnist who thinks he's a wit (he's half-right) calling names, but saying nothing of substance, and another guy(girl???) who posts the text of the column without offering any specifics, or an opinion.
Gotta be at least a dozen similar threads started in the past 2 or 3 days.

I know, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I felt I needed to make this observation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quite often a columnist can articulate a person's opinions better than they can, so posting such a column gets a point across. I'm making an assumption that the poster agrees with the columnist otherwise he/she wouldn't have posted it without a comments. Thats my two cents anyway.

theloniusfleabag · January 2, 2006

Dear scriblett,

Quite often a columnist can articulate a person's opinions better than they can, so posting such a column gets a point across. I'm making an assumption that the poster agrees with the columnist otherwise he/she wouldn't have posted it without a comments.

Posting whole articles, especially without adding your own 'two cents' is a contravention of forum rules, I believe. All that is needed is a link and possibly one or two pertinent paraghraphs. Otherwise, you are merely debating by proxy, and not with your own words.

I can just imagine a debate of nothing more that cut&pasted quotes and blogs...

"Tune in tomorrow for the debate on Euthanasia...featuring Ghandi vs. Hitler"

Biblio Bibuli · January 2, 2006

All that is needed is a link.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Easier said than done if you are posting a link from a cheepola Canadian newspaper. They all got into the dirty habit of charging you a monthly fee if you aren't a regular subscriber. And if you are, you STILL can't cut & paste the damn things!

No American newspaper does that!

Why is that?

Melanie_ · January 2, 2006

Charles Adler is an egocentric windbag, and his columns are more about promoting "Adler Nation" (adulation?) than about furthering political debate. Quote someone of substance, and we can talk.