He Came to Change Ottawa, Not in the Way He Said Though

During the last election, Harper made great claims of change, should he take government. He said he was going to clean things up and of course we all now know how that has gone.

The thing is, he didn't come to Ottawa to clean things up. He came to Ottawa to tear it apart. The big hint was when he claimed that he would be kept in check by all of the Liberal institutions that were part of Ottawa. He said it with a smile on his face but behind his back he had a stick that was searching for the hornet's nest.

The change he spoke of to the country was one of honesty, transparency and clean government. Since taking power there are too many instances of dishonesty, obstruction and dirty government tricks to mention coherently.

No, the change he was focused on were the institutions and government practices that he had derided for years. The Senate, the Judiciary, the Civil Service, Arts funding, media access to government, Immigration and Elections Canada, to name a few.

He's often cited as being a great strategist. I beg to differ. He's slick but spinning a situation into an unrecognizable state does not constitute good strategy in my books. It's a temporary method to divert attention but when it is used in each and every situation that calls for accountability, it loses it's effect. The recent communications strategy employed last Sunday? Idiotic.

Today when asked about the In and Out scheme in New Orleans, he again diverted and said this.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the Conservatives followed the spending rules in the last election — but if the official interpretation of those laws changes, the party will adapt as well.
“This is the same story as before,” he said. “We always follow the law as it has been interpreted.”

The prime minister said if the agency's reading of the rules prevails, then the Tories will change their spending strategies.
But he said all the other parties will have to follow suit.

Cute don't you think? He suggests that the court might rule that the interpretation of the law might change. Uh, no. If the court rules in Election Canada's favour it would mean that the Con's misinterpreted the law and according to the affidavit, EC are suggesting that they did that knowingly or that they should have known.

He also says that if the ruling goes that way, the party will change their spending strategies. Well someone should tell that twerp Poilievre that he's contradicting his boss. For days he's been saying that of course he'd spend the same way in the next election. After all, a bunch of bureaucrats have no right in telling them what the content of their ads should be. If you missed him this morning on Canada AM and you can stomach it, here you go. To be honest, I burst out laughing listening to him.

It would appear that Poilievre, Van Loan and Harper are going to continue to divert and distract. They will stay focused on the civil suit and ignore the fact that they are charged with overspending nationally. And btw, if I hear one more commentator tell me how complicated this is and don't all the parties do it anyway?, I think I'll scream. It's not complicated and the other parties did not do what the Con's did...full stop.

Harper wanted to gain power in Ottawa for one reason and one reason only. He wanted to change it to fit his ideology, plain and simple. If he is ruled against in this civil suit, I expect he will find a way to continue his attack on that institution. He's point men have done everything but say outright that EC marches to a Liberal drummer. In fact, it could be argued that Poilievre crossed the line in the interview I provided above.

I don't know what body oversees the ten percenter's, but given that the Con's appear to have overspent there as well, I do hope that too receives the light it deserves.

Harper came to change things alright, but he lied as to what he wanted to change. The hidden agenda claim is derided by almost all media now, yet it's being unveiled before their eyes. Weird that.

I suppose the phrase 'can't see the forest for the trees' might be apt, but to me, 'if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear, does it make a sound?' seems a better fit.