43

‘We are all judged by it’


 

Glen Pearson eulogizes the 40th Parliament and wishes better for its successor.

For those entering … make this different, make it count. Put aside the rank partisanship and seek a third option, a way of not only compromise but reconciliation. Don’t say that politics demands indignities because your families, your constituents, your country and perhaps your God demand better. Be servants with a past tense, people who can say as you exit, “I was a respectful Member of Parliament. I worked across the aisle. I found commonalities whenever I could. I behaved as though the House was like a place of faith and I kept my pact.” You have a past – use it for the betterment of our people and our world.


 

‘We are all judged by it’

  1. "In the place of an honourable man who was falsely accused of “only visiting” we now have an MP that was elected without ever setting foot in the riding. "

    Glen Pearson, keeping it classy and non-partisan all the way.

    • Why would a Liberal MP suddenly become 'non-partisan'?

      And why is it only unclassy when Libs and Dippers are partisan but not when Cons are?

      • Because he just wrote an essay all about putting aside rank partisanship?

  2. This man missed his calling. He should follow Elizabeth May's lead and become a member of the clergy.

    • Wow! I actually agree with you, lol!!!

  3. Put aside rank partisanship…I suppose that some people could try to start by putting aside Wherry's 24/7 Harper-hater echo chamber…or maybe Wherry himself could realize "wait a second – I'm supposed to be a JOURNALIST, not an informal Liberal PR man…"

    • Oh for the love of…

      Would you stop with the incessant wherry whining already.

      • I shall stop the incessant Wherry whining when Aaron stop his incessant Harper-hating echo chamber…actually, I'll stop long before that, but for now I intend to keep rubbing it in

    • Or you could stop blaming one blog for everything that's wrong in your world.

      • Oh, I'm not "blaming" Aaron…as I've posted repeatedly before, it's just the opposite…many sage observers have noted that one major cause of the Liberal defeat was their assumption that most voters hated Harper as much as Liberal partisans…Wherry's blog was a contributor to that false assumption…ergo, Wherry's blog contributed to the historic decimation of the Liberal party…thus, Wherry's blog is not be blamed but to be CREDITED for what is RIGHT in the world…but that's still no excuse for him pretending to be a journalist instead of the Liberal shill that he is

        • Many sage observers? No, sorry…that isn't even remotely true.

          And in any case, one lone blog….however you perceive it…. didn't swing this election. Get real.

          • of course, I never claimed that any blog, let alone this one, swung the election…I specifically stated that it is a contributing factor, no more, no less – the extent of the contribution could be debated, but it was clearly only one among many…irrespective, don't let me stop you from jousting with strawmen…

          • Actually, that's pretty much all you've posted since your arrival.

            If all you ever want to hear are good things about Harper, I suggest you join the Blogging Tories

        • To be a Liberal shill, don't you have to, I don't know, shill for the Liberals? Maybe at least once? Instead of making the same kind of cracks at them that you make about the Conservatives?

          But I guess in your world, where not actively out promoting Conservatives means you "hate" them, I suppose it may make sense that criticising them less means you are a shill. {roll eyes}

          • Like your colleague above, you seem to have entangled yourself in a mighty battle with an imposing strawman..as it happens, in my "world" it is not at all the case that "not actively out promoting Conservatives means you "hate" them"…for instance, so far as I can see, none of the other Macleans bloggers are in the business of promoting the Conservatives, actively or otherwise, and yet none of them are Liberal shills either…the world is not as black-and-white as you seem to need to believe…it's just Wherry whose Liberal hackishness beggars all belief

        • "Oh, I'm not 'blaming' Aaron…," it's just that it makes me so mad to think that there's even one person out there, not toeing Stephen Harper's line.

          • I'm sorry that, like Aaron, you would prefer to live in a world of partisan propagandists….myself, I just think that people covering Canadian politics should be capable of doing things like acknowledging that there may be a distinction to be made between the policies and political culture of the provincial prairie NDP parties versus the federal party of the same name…that's hardly "Stephen Harper's line"…it's the line of many people who have studied Canadian politics professionally, as well as moderately competent journalists…but I leave you to battle it out as to which which party "line" everyone must be assumed to sign onto

          • Oh, so you really don't get it? Fair enough, I guess.

        • A majority of voters hating Harper wouldn't be inconsistent with the election result.

          • See, once again, the assumption that everyone who didn't vote for Harper must hate him is what keeps hurting the Liberals…in every election people like you assume that everyone who didn't vote for Harper must have hated him as much as hardcore Liberal partisans…so, in the next election you and Wherry run again on the "everyone hates Harper" platform…and in every election more voters move over into Harper's column, especially more Liberal voters..ergo, it is evidently not the case that not voting for Harper = hating Harper…just the opposite: in many cases, not voting Harper in this election proves to mean voting for Harper in the next election…but keep running on that Harper-hating platform…you've lost votes that way in every election to date, so I wouldn't want to stop you from losing even more…and when you do lose voters once again, at least you can take comfort in knowing that Aaron Wherry proudly lead your parade down the electoral toilet once again

          • "…the assumption that everyone who didn't vote for Harper must hate him…"

            You really need to learn how to read for comprehension. That I'm a Liberal or that I claimed every single voter who didn't vote for Harper hates him, are both entirely figments of your febrile imagination.

          • Apparently it is you who needs "to learn to read for comprehension", as I nowhere wrote that you were a Liberal. The rest of my argument stands untouched by your thick repartee.

          • Riiight. When you said "you've lost voters that way in every election to date" you were referring to the declining number of voters who write-in "guest" on their ballots.

    • Boring.

      • So boring you took the time and energy to post a response…your life must be pretty slow these days, huh?

    • If you're this bitter after a victory, I shudder to think how on earth would you have reacted had your Conservative party lost.

  4. I have no doubt the next Parliament will be more dignified and productive than the previous few, not necessarily because of the majority status of the Government, or because of the virtual elimination of the Bloc, or the internal strife of the inexperienced NDP group, but because of the message sent to the Opposition Liberals from the people in the last two elections.

    I have always thought that the Liberals have acted as a reckless and irresponsible opposition and Pearson and Ignetieff may be decent men but they sat down in caucus meetings on Wednesday mornings and said nothing when the Dosanjhs and Hollands and Jennings were plotting the newest disruptive and petty plans, from wafers, to body bags, to contempts. Had Ignatieff and Pearson had the courage to insist that the Official Opposition will act in a critical but responsible manner then the gov`t would have taken the lead from that, and if they didn`t then the electorate would have punished them.

    The opportunity has been lost on the Liberals–it is now up to the NDP to provide a decent and effective opposition. There only about a half dozen Liberal MP`s who will be effective.
    The NDP, because more than half their caucus are rookies will have a difficult time proving to Canadians that they are even close to being able to form government. Harper will stay on as PM for as long as he pleases and if he provides good government then there will be several more Conservative electoral wins.
    I would prefer two strong parties ( one centre-right and one centre-left ) in the country, both of them fit to govern if needed. We don`t have that now. That is the fault of Pearson and his Party.

    • Nobody's sending any 'messages'. That would require Canadians to be one cohesive group, and we're not.

      It's millions of Canadians making individual votes, not some joint effort.

  5. Selective and decontextualized quotation is certainly designed to put bricks in the wall of the Harper-hater echo chamber…for instance, not so many weeks ago Wherry attempted to present Harper as hypocritical for drawing a distinction between the provincial prairie NDP parties and the federal party of the same name…in fact, drawing such a distinction is very common to both partisan and non-partisan observers of multifarious stripes…for Wherry not to take that fact into consideration, and for him to present the attempt at drawing any such distinction as illegitimate and ipso facto hypocritical is for him to show that he is either totally ignorant of the subject which he purports to be covering, or that he is such a shameless shill that he is willing to ignore the most basic information in order to put another brick in the wall of the Harper-hater echo chamber

    Moreover, Wherry's propaganda does not only relate to how he presents the Prime Minister, but also how he presents the Prime Minister's opponents, such as when he quoted a misleading excerpt from an article in order to misrepresent the subject of that article as endorsing Stephane Dion's position, when in fact anyone who actually read the article could see that that was not the case at all (see here: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/31/somewhere-step… )…again, whether Wherry was simply ignorant of the article he choose to excerpt, or whether he was deliberately spinning it into the most propagandistic form possible is hard to say…but it shows that once again he choose to act as a cheap Liberal shill, rather than as a conscientious journalist, either way

    • Selective memory is what you suffer. As you disregard similar posts by Wherry on others.

      As for decontextualizing, how can it be decontextualized when he provides the entire link to the original source?

      I've never met a bigger bunch of incessant whiners than conservatives about the media. So selective in their generalizations and memory.

      • "Selective memory is what you suffer. As you disregard similar posts by Wherry on others"

        Bwahahahahaha…you mean other posts where Wherry similarly disregards basic facts about Canadian politics and misrepresents the material that he is linking to…so you mean that Wherry is hack, he's just an even bigger hack than I realize…alright, then!

        "As for decontextualizing, how can it be decontextualized when he provides the entire link to the original source?"

        This is a pretty thick question. If he gives a post a title suggesting that a given article supports the position of Stephane Dion, then excerpts that article in such a way as to misleadingly suggest that it supports Dion's position, when in fact, when read as on its own as a whole, one can see that the article does not align with Dion's position, then Wherry has misrepresented and decontextualized it.

        • Will you continue posting after you have to post your real email address? Just wondering…

          • Probably, but not regularly: I've never been a consistently regular poster. I'll post regularly for a few weeks, then stop for several months, etc. That's the main reason that I've never bothered to get an intensedebate account. But I expect that I'll post again at some point after registration becomes compulsory.

  6. The straw man is the one you 'brung to the dance'….don't blame me for setting a match to it.

    • No you're just babbling nonsensically

      • *Now

        • Ahhh more of that 'rank partisanship' I see.

  7. The next parliament will be 'nicer' as it has a majority government, and less opportunity for brinkmanship. It will change, not because the players have changed, but because the dynamics have changed.

    And certainly not because Glen asks for it.

    As a side note, can we expect to not hear/see Justin as much this time around?

  8. Why is a cheap shot at the aspiring PM is "rank" while a cheap shot at a working mom is not?

    • ???? didn't make one.

      • Suggesting that Parliament is worse off because an "honorable man" has been replaced by M. Brosseau is sinking pretty low in the practice of partisanship.

        • "In the place of an honourable man who was falsely accused of “only visiting” we now have an MP that was elected without ever setting foot in the riding. "

          You really had to work to change the meaning of that…and you failed.

  9. From Rick Mercer's blog:

    "Liberals, even when in opposition, are always surprised when they meet someone who isn't a liberal. They tend to believe everyone looks at the world the way they do, everyone is on the same team."

    Glen lives in Liberal La La Land – just read his blogs. They are the only ones who think they are "the natural governing party" – voters have seen the light, thank god!!!

Sign in to comment.