Jump to content

Massive Disappointment from Me


Recommended Posts

Well, from your friendly neighbourhood Conservative Party member, I am extremely disappointed in some things Harper did in Cabinet selection.

Giving a high profile job to Emerson after crossing the floor is a joke, Harper said he would work to prevent things like this from happening after Belinda, but look at this. How stupid of him, I highly disapprove.

Fortnier getting a spot though he's unelected. Hopefully Harper doesn't put him in the Senate, if he seeks a by-election then ok. Senate appointment to Fortnier and I won't be voting CPC next election.

Diane Ablonczy didn't get a spot. She deserved it. I bet Emerson took her job.

Rona Ambrose got environment? She deserved more than that, plus not really playing to her strengths.

Bernier got the big posting out of the Quebecois. I thought it would be, and should have been Cannon.

Stockwell got Public Safety? He'll ride around on his jetski protecting us.

Peter got Foreign Affairs so he's not around to annoy Harper. Should have been in Justice realistically, but instead we have Vic Toews who even I think is scary on Justice.

Those are all my complaints. The rest is somewhat acceptable. Still extremely disappointed in Harper for giving Emerson a spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well geoffrey, your post history is of somebody who is very obstinate in their positions and will not change. Regardless, I will offer some rationale for the choices the Prime Minister made.

Fortier (at least spell the guys name right) is there for the need to represent Montreal. A by-election isn't feasible as there probly won't be a seat in Montreal opening up short term. Yes, he will go into the senate. A condition of that is he will only sit as an appointed senator until a senate election can be held.

Ablonczy was symbolic of the tough choices Harper had to make. Did she *deserve* to be in? Probably. Did a lot of others who *deserved* to be in get shut out? Calgary couldn't have three ministers (Harper, Prentice and Ablonczy). Harper's choice of Prentice was shrewd as Prentice knows the Indian Affairs file extremely well and it keeps the PC wing of the party happy.

Environment is a good portfolio for Ambrose. What would have been the *more* she deserved? As for not playing into her *strengths*, Intergovernmental Affairs and Social Development (both presumably playing to her strengths) were melded into other areas of responsibility. I think you are downplaying Ambrose's competency and the importance of the Environment portfolio.

Bernier and Cannon both got *good* ministries.

Boy, what a great insult about Stockwell Day. Glad to see you put a lot of time and consideration into that one. Childish, ignorant, tsk, tsk task. Another choice aimed at maintaining internal harmony in the party.

Foreign Affairs is a great posting for anybody to get. Toews is a little out there, if he doesn't rein himself in he won't bet there long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh shoop I'm not so critical of Harper over his choices, I don't like many of them, but whatever, it'll work.

I'm mostly disappointed that he pulled a Belinda and had Emerson cross into a cabinet post. This isn't what I voted for. I understand he's there to represent Vancouver, but this floor crossing hooliganism isn't something I want to see continued.

Fortier gets appointed to the Senate, even though its temporary. I understand Harper says this is only until we have an elected Senate or next election, but this wasn't supposed to happen. Give someone else responsibility for Montreal, why do they need a cabinet minister if they didn't vote for one. (I understand its to gain votes, but if we show them that they must vote CPC to get a minister, it'll be more effective)

The Stockwell comment was a joke, I actually don't mind the guy, but he's better dealing with money than our security in my opinion. Alot of these postings aren't to people's past backgrounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me the person who called Belinda a whore owes her an apology in the light of the newest con jigiloe David Emerson. And his senate appointment. So much for cleaning up Government. You guys were truly conned.

Thats how I'm feeling right now, we'll see how it goes from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me the person who called Belinda a whore owes her an apology in the light of the newest con jigiloe David Emerson. And his senate appointment. So much for cleaning up Government. You guys were truly conned.

I was the one and owe nobody an apology. Why, you ask? Because Emerson is guilty of the same. He's a political whore too. And Harper's now guilty of pandering.

The senate thing kind of disappointed me, but upon learning that its a temporary to fill the post until an election can be held puts my mind to rest -- for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me the person who called Belinda a whore owes her an apology in the light of the newest con jigiloe David Emerson. And his senate appointment. So much for cleaning up Government. You guys were truly conned.

I was the one and owe nobody an apology. Why, you ask? Because Emerson is guilty of the same. He's a political whore too. And Harper's now guilty of pandering.

The senate thing kind of disappointed me, but upon learning that its a temporary to fill the post until an election can be held puts my mind to rest -- for now.

Agreed.

It's a wonder we have seen individuals affiliating themselves with parties less and less. It has less to do with Putnam's "Bowling Alone" thesis and more to do with the fact that politicians are whores and desire power over integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm ....

Oh shoop I'm not so critical of Harper over his choices, I don't like many of them, but whatever, it'll work.

Why call the thread a *massive* dissapointment then?

I'm mostly disappointed that he pulled a Belinda and had Emerson cross into a cabinet post. This isn't what I voted for. I understand he's there to represent Vancouver, but this floor crossing hooliganism isn't something I want to see continued.

Yeah, the floor-crossing is a strange one. Especially if you look at his riding. I think he will have a very tough time winning re-election there as a Conservative.

Fortier gets appointed to the Senate, even though its temporary. I understand Harper says this is only until we have an elected Senate or next election, but this wasn't supposed to happen. Give someone else responsibility for Montreal, why do they need a cabinet minister if they didn't vote for one. (I understand its to gain votes, but if we show them that they must vote CPC to get a minister, it'll be more effective)

That sorta hick, red-neck talk will *never* get the Conservatives into majority territory.

The Stockwell comment was a joke, I actually don't mind the guy, but he's better dealing with money than our security in my opinion. Alot of these postings aren't to people's past backgrounds.

Creating a cabinet is a balancing act. If you truly feel you were *conned* then you don't understand the trade-offs of governing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm ....

Oh shoop I'm not so critical of Harper over his choices, I don't like many of them, but whatever, it'll work.

Why call the thread a *massive* dissapointment then?

I'm mostly disappointed that he pulled a Belinda and had Emerson cross into a cabinet post. This isn't what I voted for. I understand he's there to represent Vancouver, but this floor crossing hooliganism isn't something I want to see continued.

Yeah, the floor-crossing is a strange one. Especially if you look at his riding. I think he will have a very tough time winning re-election there as a Conservative.

Fortier gets appointed to the Senate, even though its temporary. I understand Harper says this is only until we have an elected Senate or next election, but this wasn't supposed to happen. Give someone else responsibility for Montreal, why do they need a cabinet minister if they didn't vote for one. (I understand its to gain votes, but if we show them that they must vote CPC to get a minister, it'll be more effective)

That sorta hick, red-neck talk will *never* get the Conservatives into majority territory.

The Stockwell comment was a joke, I actually don't mind the guy, but he's better dealing with money than our security in my opinion. Alot of these postings aren't to people's past backgrounds.

Creating a cabinet is a balancing act. If you truly feel you were *conned* then you don't understand the trade-offs of governing...

My massive disappointment is in the Emerson deal. Especially because of what you just said, he would have one hell of a tough ride to be elected there now. At least Belinda could win her riding again right? (not that I'm ok with either).

About the red-neck talk. I'd rather not see another Liberal party under any other name in majority territory so if selling ourselves out to get there is neccesary, I'd just rather not have myself involved.

I don't feel conned by the cabinet selections, I feel conned about Harper getting Emerson to cross into a cabinet post. Like I said, I don't agree with alot of the placements, but its not that bad. It's getting Emerson in thats the big deal for me really. Don't like the Fortier move either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows about Emerson.

What exactly is the sell-out? Are you really that angry about *anything* necessary to govern the country effectively?

How exactly are you *involved*?

You clearly have issues with the three big Canadian cities. They didn't vote the way you wanted them to. But telling them to piss off and *vote the right way next time* is childish and won't work. I hope you don't approach your personal and professional relationships in such an aggressive Ayn Rand-esque way...

My massive disappointment is in the Emerson deal. Especially because of what you just said, he would have one hell of a tough ride to be elected there now. At least Belinda could win her riding again right? (not that I'm ok with either).

About the red-neck talk. I'd rather not see another Liberal party under any other name in majority territory so if selling ourselves out to get there is neccesary, I'd just rather not have myself involved.

I don't feel conned by the cabinet selections, I feel conned about Harper getting Emerson to cross into a cabinet post. Like I said, I don't agree with alot of the placements, but its not that bad. It's getting Emerson in thats the big deal for me really. Don't like the Fortier move either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trying to draw any comparisons concerning the relative merits of individuals but it might be worth remembering that Winston Churchill crossed the floor twice during his career. Some called him a whore as well but he didn't do so badly for his country. It's a risky maneuver and only time will tell if it was a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows about Emerson.

What exactly is the sell-out? Are you really that angry about *anything* necessary to govern the country effectively?

How exactly are you *involved*?

You clearly have issues with the three big Canadian cities. They didn't vote the way you wanted them to. But telling them to piss off and *vote the right way next time* is childish and won't work. I hope you don't approach your personal and professional relationships in such an aggressive Ayn Rand-esque way...

My massive disappointment is in the Emerson deal. Especially because of what you just said, he would have one hell of a tough ride to be elected there now. At least Belinda could win her riding again right? (not that I'm ok with either).

About the red-neck talk. I'd rather not see another Liberal party under any other name in majority territory so if selling ourselves out to get there is neccesary, I'd just rather not have myself involved.

I don't feel conned by the cabinet selections, I feel conned about Harper getting Emerson to cross into a cabinet post. Like I said, I don't agree with alot of the placements, but its not that bad. It's getting Emerson in thats the big deal for me really. Don't like the Fortier move either.

I'm involved by being a big supporter of the CPC, financially and politically (not to mention volunteer work for the party, ect. ect.). Not like this is at all important so I don't even know why you'd go into this shoop.

The fact that Harper's got people crossing the floor on the first day of being PM is ridiculous. Most people voted for change and this is simply the same.

It's no big deal, your right, PM's have done it in the past, its the way its been done for a hundred years. But I thought this was the idea, to get away from what was done in such underhanded ways in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get into this for a serious reason.

The Conservatives have traditionally lacked the discipline of the Liberals. That lack of discipline is what has hurt us in the past. Sure you may not agree with everything Harper did with his cabinet, but histrionics about selling out, and red-necked comments about big cities voting the right way only hurts us.

The Conservatives have a chance to govern for an extended period here. *Supporters* jumping on the PM the day he takes office isn't the way to stay in power.

Remember the old saying "moral victories are for chumps".

It is far better to stay in office and get 80% of your platform enacted then to fall on your sword, lose power and get NONE of your platform enacted.

We have been out of power long enough that we need to re-learn how to govern. We also need to learn how to not go overboard when we see things happen that we don't agree with at first glance...

I'm involved by being a big supporter of the CPC, financially and politically (not to mention volunteer work for the party, ect. ect.). Not like this is at all important so I don't even know why you'd go into this shoop.

The fact that Harper's got people crossing the floor on the first day of being PM is ridiculous. Most people voted for change and this is simply the same.

It's no big deal, your right, PM's have done it in the past, its the way its been done for a hundred years. But I thought this was the idea, to get away from what was done in such underhanded ways in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get into this for a serious reason.

The Conservatives have traditionally lacked the discipline of the Liberals. That lack of discipline is what has hurt us in the past. Sure you may not agree with everything Harper did with his cabinet, but histrionics about selling out, and red-necked comments about big cities voting the right way only hurts us.

The Conservatives have a chance to govern for an extended period here. *Supporters* jumping on the PM the day he takes office isn't the way to stay in power.

Remember the old saying "moral victories are for chumps".

It is far better to stay in office and get 80% of your platform enacted then to fall on your sword, lose power and get NONE of your platform enacted.

We have been out of power long enough that we need to re-learn how to govern. We also need to learn how to not go overboard when we see things happen that we don't agree with at first glance...

I'm involved by being a big supporter of the CPC, financially and politically (not to mention volunteer work for the party, ect. ect.). Not like this is at all important so I don't even know why you'd go into this shoop.

The fact that Harper's got people crossing the floor on the first day of being PM is ridiculous. Most people voted for change and this is simply the same.

It's no big deal, your right, PM's have done it in the past, its the way its been done for a hundred years. But I thought this was the idea, to get away from what was done in such underhanded ways in the past.

Fair enough shoop, I understand where your coming from.

I do stand by the Emerson move as sleezy though, I don't like it one bit. It's at best very unethical. If Harper wants to win a majority, he best tread a very good governance and ethical line for the rest of his tenure.

If Canada gets the impression thats he's like the rest, we won't win a majority. Harper's integrity and campaign on ethics in government is what won win the minority, if he follows through he'll win a majority. If this continues it will hurt the party yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are issues with the Emerson appointment. However, governments - like people - are not perfect and sometimes have to make hard choices.

Hopefully, this does not set the tone for the Harper government. If Emerson is an isolated incident he will be ok. If it sets a pattern of behaviour then they are in trouble.

It also goes to show the Liberals that the CPC is playing for keeps this time and won't give away government like Clark did in 1980.

Fair enough shoop, I understand where your coming from.

I do stand by the Emerson move as sleezy though, I don't like it one bit. It's at best very unethical. If Harper wants to win a majority, he best tread a very good governance and ethical line for the rest of his tenure.

If Canada gets the impression thats he's like the rest, we won't win a majority. Harper's integrity and campaign on ethics in government is what won win the minority, if he follows through he'll win a majority. If this continues it will hurt the party yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving a high profile job to Emerson after crossing the floor is a joke, Harper said he would work to prevent things like this from happening after Belinda, but look at this. How stupid of him, I highly disapprove.

Ah come on Geoff, no one in their right mind would ever prevent the other party's superstars from joining their team.

Now if Mr. Harper gave a high profile job to some Liberal airhead, as the Liberals did with Belinda, I'd be pissed off too.

But he didn't!

He gave it to David Emerson, the man who led a very powerful B.C. cabinet contingent for the Liberals. And the ONLY way that Stephen Harper could keep it powerful was by snapping up this Liberal superstar.

WAY TO GO STEPHEN!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents:

First, let's let the government have a few weeks in office before anyone starts second-guessing who was appointed to what. I have yet to hear Harper's explanation for how decided what he did. On balance, the list makes as much sense as any hypothetical list I saw.

Second, I too was bothered by Emerson's crossing the floor and immediately going into cabinet. I don't like the idea of Fortier getting into cabinet through the back door either. There is nothing against this however, and lots of precedents, yet I still hoped that Harper would have a higher standard. There are two justifications I can see: the Conservatives get representation from large urban centres and they also get an insurance vote in the House in the event that both the BQ and Liberals vote against.

Third, while I think it is a mistake that Quebecers have less important portfolios, I have yet to see any mention of the all-important Policy and Planning Committee. There are three Quebecers (Cannon, Bernier, LeBreton) on this committee and looking at its make up, I suspect they will easily have Harper's ear.

Fourth, I support the Tories primarily because I think the federal government is too large and we don't get value for the tax dollars we send to Ottawa. I am willing to trust Harper's judgment about the deals he must make to accomplish this primary task.

Fifth, I am somehwat surprised that Jason Kenney was excluded and I wonder whether there is a story there. Did Kenney blab in some way and forfeit his name from the roster? This raises the point that there are many more people excluded than included, and politicians have notoriously large egos. A leader's fate is ultimately decided by the caucus support (something Mulroney constantly mentioned in his Newman conversations.) I hope Harper gives parliamentary committees some power.

Sixth, I'm happy the position of Deputy PM was abolished and that Harper has a much smaller cabinet. These points alone augur well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents:

First, let's let the government have a few weeks in office before anyone starts second-guessing who was appointed to what. I have yet to hear Harper's explanation for how decided what he did. On balance, the list makes as much sense as any hypothetical list I saw.

True enough. At least wait till they have done something *as government* before going on the attack.

Second, I too was bothered by Emerson's crossing the floor and immediately going into cabinet. I don't like the idea of Fortier getting into cabinet through the back door either. There is nothing against this however, and lots of precedents, yet I still hoped that Harper would have a higher standard. There are two justifications I can see: the Conservatives get representation from large urban centres and they also get an insurance vote in the House in the event that both the BQ and Liberals vote against.

There is a valid argument to be made supporting what they did. But at the heart of it the Emerson crossing was pretty slimey.

Third, while I think it is a mistake that Quebecers have less important portfolios, I have yet to see any mention of the all-important Policy and Planning Committee. There are three Quebecers (Cannon, Bernier, LeBreton) on this committee and looking at its make up, I suspect they will easily have Harper's ear.

I don't think calling their appointments *less important* portfolios is very fair, or accurate. Industry is a powerful portfolio. Labout is improtant. International cooperation is important to Quebec given the promises Harper made about UNESCO, etc...

Fourth, I support the Tories primarily because I think the federal government is too large and we don't get value for the tax dollars we send to Ottawa. I am willing to trust Harper's judgment about the deals he must make to accomplish this primary task.

Bottom line, I am willing to trust Harper's judgment too.

Fifth, I am somehwat surprised that Jason Kenney was excluded and I wonder whether there is a story there. Did Kenney blab in some way and forfeit his name from the roster? This raises the point that there are many more people excluded than included, and politicians have notoriously large egos. A leader's fate is ultimately decided by the caucus support (something Mulroney constantly mentioned in his Newman conversations.) I hope Harper gives parliamentary committees some power.

I think it is unnecessary conspiracy theorizing about Kenney. Harper had some real tough choices to make in Alberta. Kenney, Ablonczy, Rajotte and Jaffer all could have made it into cabinet without anybody batting an eye. Too bad they are all from Alberta.

Sixth, I'm happy the position of Deputy PM was abolished and that Harper has a much smaller cabinet. These points alone augur well.

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deputy PM isn't like the Vice-Presidency of the U.S. *If* something happened to Harper caucus would probably pick an interim leader (and PM) before the party had a leadership convention.

No reason to be so knee-jerk anti-Harper on this one.

I'm happy the position of Deputy PM was abolished ...

Does Harper think that, should something happen to him, his wife or son will replace him?

Dream on, Stephen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were it not for the Liberal's running around the country spreading fear instead of policy, the Conservatives should and would have received a stronger mandate.

Well, I thought it was Harper's moral upstanding and clean campaign that put the cons in power. Well, you've had a taste today of the REAL Stephen Harper. More hidden agenda to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deputy PM isn't like the Vice-Presidency of the U.S. *If* something happened to Harper caucus would probably pick an interim leader (and PM) before the party had a leadership convention.

No reason to be so knee-jerk anti-Harper on this one.

I'm happy the position of Deputy PM was abolished ...

Does Harper think that, should something happen to him, his wife or son will replace him?

Dream on, Stephen!

Harper's son is like 8... :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were it not for the Liberal's running around the country spreading fear instead of policy, the Conservatives should and would have received a stronger mandate.

Well, I thought it was Harper's moral upstanding and clean campaign that put the cons in power. Well, you've had a taste today of the REAL Stephen Harper. More hidden agenda to follow.

Newbie,

I think you are being overly pessimistic.

I won't play a double standard here. I criticized's Belinda's defection and I agree that Harper's decision is quite beyond me and looks really bad.

But if you think you are ready to bring the government down over this then you need to just relax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...