Wasn't just a few days ago that reporters were ohhhing and ahhhing over the kinder, gentler PM? To be honest, I was shocked that anyone bought his performance at the press gallery, let alone some of our most experienced members of the press, but buy it they seemed to.If you're Stephen Harper though, it must be tough to keep up all that nicey, nicey stuff. It must be a bit suffocating to keep your true nature reigned in.
That said, it wasn't too surprising to hear the mean spirited non sequitur come from his mouth in QP today. When asked about a this,
Mr. Guimond asked Mr. Harper if he had ever met with Mr. Housakos at the Prime Minister's official residence 24 Sussex.
Harper responds with this:
“The Bloc member mentioned two people who are of Greek origin,” Mr. Harper replied in French, “one who was an employee here in Ottawa, another one who is a supporter of the Conservative party in Montreal. The fact that [there's] two Montreal gentlemen of Greek origin doesn't mean there's a conspiracy here.”
What the hell is that supposed to mean? To arbitrarily throw out someones race when it clearly has nothing to do with the subject, is not only bizarre, it's pretty damned revealing.
As usual, Van Loan twisted the truth into a pretzel and accused the Bloc member of being racist.
Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan countered by arguing that the Prime Minister's remarks had been mischaracterized, and that Mr. Harper was actually “defending the people of Greek origin from what seemed to be unfitting attacks by the Opposition.”
This party hasn't changed one iota. I guess it's true when you say, you are, who you are, who you are.
I'll expand this post to deal with the real issue later.
6 comments:
Sometimes I just don't understand how the media can be so gullible. The whole point of Manley was a political parachute for Harper, most of the MSM even said so at the time. Now, when Harper tries to bring the Liberals on board, it's a sign of softening, when really it the known conclusion of the entire process. Move ownership of the war away from the government, to limit the liability, enter Manley. After the panel basically mirrors the Harper view, then try and bring the Liberals on board. This is just a tactic, it says nothing about the "new" Harper. Sheesh, I can't even read this stuff the last few days. Harper's a known quantity, there are no illusions, and the MSM knows the script well. If Harper is playing nice, assume it is for political advantage, nothing more, and certainly no reflection on "growth".
At least you can understand Harper. Dion needs subtitles.
Oh, Liberals will get on board, no doubt about it.
How can they refuse when:
NATO says it will meet Canada's Afghanistan demands
Associated Press
January 30, 2008
BRUSSELS — NATO is urging Canada not to pull its troops out of Afghanistan's dangerous Kandahar province.
Alliance spokesman James Appathurai says the defence organization will find the additional troops for southern Afghanistan that Ottawa is demanding....
“NATO will play its role” in finding the additional capabilities, Mr. Appathurai added.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080130.wnato0130/BNStory/International/home
"Oh, Liberals will get on board, no doubt about it."
Wilson, IF there is an agreement it will be because both parties compromise. This is not about the liberals getting "on board", it is about Harper making concessions in order to get this thing passed.
Indeed: it will be HARPER getting on board.
Steve: Harper's a known quantity, there are no illusions, and the MSM knows the script well.
It really is that simple. Why some don't get it is beyond me.
Wilson, this isn't a game. This is about figuring out if we're making a difference. If the mission is well run. If we are measuring progess. Is it good for Canada? Is it good for the Afghans? Are NATO members working at cross purposes and much, much more.
Looking for a way to accomodate all that should have been looked at a year or more ago is not about getting on board.
Post a Comment