Walk, chew gum - Macleans.ca
 

Walk, chew gum


 

Dec. 30, 2009More than 30 bills will die on the order paper, with more than half of them part of the government’s tough-on-crime agenda. But the Prime Minister’s Office said the goal is to continue focusing on the economy, with consultations on budgetary matters in the next two months. “This is the time to recalibrate, consult and deliver the next stage of our plan that we outlined last year in Budget 2009,” said spokesman Dimitri Soudas. He said that Canada has done relatively well during the recent global recession, but said “we’re not out of the woods yet.”

Sept. 24, 2008America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen … Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.


 

Walk, chew gum

  1. Is it true that parliament was scheduled to shut down for the Olympics?

    If so, we are now talking a couple or three weeks extra?

    This latest "scandal" is quickly looking even more shrill and desperate on the part of the scandal chasers, than…."he didn't eat the wafer gate". Which itself was just a cut below…."pooping puffin gate".

  2. Don't you ever bore yourself?

    • Don't you ever bore yourself?

      • Echoes bounce well in empty canyons.

  3. It's strange, but I went for a walk in Ottawa today. Nice snowy day, not too cold. And guess what — every government building I passed has this Action Plan placard out in front, sometimes on both sides of the building.

    It's just baflling how brazenly crass and unCanadian this government is. It's almost as if the Trailer Park Boys are now running the country.

  4. Another reminder of why "Con-bot" is so apt a name for folks like biff. This latest scandal is serious s#%t biff and you are right to be scared and rush to post first on all blogs about it.

    • I prefer "DeceptaCon" myself. You know, the evil half of "Robots in Disguise".

    • vewy vewy scawy. Run for your lives.

  5. Parliament was only supposed to take a one week break in February, as usual.
    But Harper can't have that.

  6. He calls himself "biff" – what do you expect from him, an original thought or something?

  7. Even my kid's hamster occasionally turns around and spins the wheel in the opposite direction.

  8. February 5, 1996 – Jean Chrétien and the Liberals prorogue Parliament.

    Media reaction: Zzzzzzzzzzz.

    September 18, 1999 – Jean Chrétien and the Liberals prorogue Parliament.

    Media reaction: (Crickets chirping.)

    September 16, 2002 – Jean Chrétien and the Liberals prorogue Parliament.

    Media reaction: Did I hear a pin drop?

    November 12, 2003 – Jean Chrétien and the Liberals prorogue Parliament.

    Media reaction: stone cold silence.

    December 30th, 2009 Stephen Harper and the Conservatives prorogue Parliament.

    Media reaction: Man the ramparts! Democracy as we know it is in peril! We cannot let this stand!

    The Canadian media has a little bit of a credibility gap, methinks.

    Happy New Years everyone, and take the media's selective outrage on this with a little grain of salt.

    • I see no one's adressed the point of my post. Beside the point comments and ad hominens. Par for the course.

      Happy New Year anyways Liberal partisans.

      • They know they can't. Their rebuttal is "but this time it's different because Harper is using it to evade our scathing attacks that expose this government for the baby kitten eaters that they are!"

      • Of course there was no outrage to Chretien's prorogues because they were justified. Prorogues are completely legitimate in most cases and have been used many times.

        What Harper has done is use the prorogue to avoid accountability to parliament. He did it last year to avoid a non-confidence motion, and he did it this year to avoid a committee investigation in to Afghan detainees. This is outrageous.

    • It doesn`t look like you are getting any Happy New Year back at you jarrid so I will wish you the best in 2010.

      Stay calm even while those around you are in juvenile hysterics.

    • I've seen this argument posted numerous times now, and I don't quite get where you're coming from, jarrid. You seem to imply that there should have been more outrage on all those other occasions than there was. But if that's accurate, aren't you then saying that this particular example is analogous to those? And if that's the case, then aren't you saying that there is cause for outrage in this instance? I'm asking because you don't actually seem very outraged by what the Prime Minister has done, and without that, your argument seems pretty disingenuous, leaning towards masturbatory.

  9. Do we need to have a refresher on the definitions of "majority" and "minority"?

    • And a primer on context…not that Jarrid's remotely interested in objective reality.

    • I don't think your point is very well thought through Richard.

      If a party with a Parliamentary majority, such as Chrétien's did, prorogues, the other parties can do nothing.

      If a party with a Parliamentary minority prorogues, such as we have now and did in 2008, the other parties can rebuke or take action against the government at the next available opportunity. The opposition had that chance in January 2009 and will again, in March 2010.

      So what's your point, exactly? Try again, Richard.

  10. Forgot one, dimpled**k: Dec 2008, Harper prorogues Parliament to avoid certain defeat.

  11. At this point, given Obama's rapidly dropping support and growing perception of incompetence, invoking the dread spectre of John McCain (REPUBLICAN BOOOOOOO HISS) may not exactly make the point you intend.

  12. And reopened shortly thereafter to start a new session. The Liberals didn't take better than two months off to avoid a lawful order of Parliament, and serious questions on a war.

  13. Anyone know where I can get a Dimitri Soudas muppet, or was it a one-off?

    • you should be ok to find one Jack, biff, jesse, jarrid, avr, ….(the list seems long) all seem to be relevant examples. maybe you fear that stores are sold out!

    • It's a one-off. They're custom made in Athens.

  14. Veteran journalists noting how the media are making fools of themselves on the Afghan detainee issue (broken into parts):

    I"t's a disgrace, if you ask me, it's a complete disgrace that we're running around playing this sort of 'gotcha' journalism in Ottawa while we've got all of these soldiers engaged in this epochal struggle here, and treating – by the way – Taliban prisoners with kid gloves."

  15. And apparently he needs a crash course in reading comprehension as well!

  16. "Well, this is the funny thing – and we've all struggled with this here – I've talked to a number of journalists about this who are with me, and the journalists that are here, and we're all scratching are heads and wondering what is the story here, exactly? You tell me. What's news? How is it possible that any editor in his right mind could think that Peter MacKay conceding that we've known that some of these drooling brigands that are apprehended by the Afghan national army get their ears boxed a little bit from time to time? That's the way it was, that isn't the way it works now, by the way, not since 2007. The process is meticulous, it is squeaky-clean, it is public, it involves corrections Canada, the international Red Cross, the military police, the Afghan security and intelligence group, NATO – all of these detainees, and there's hardly any, by the way, we rarely turn anyone over to the Afghans any more. "

  17. By the way, if an insurgent who kills a Canadian soldier gets apprehended on the battlefield, and puts his eye out or something like that, he goes into the same triage system as Canadian soldiers do, and if he's hurt a little bit more than a Canadian soldier is, he gets priority."

    "All of this is old news. I'm sorry, (but) I mean, I spent fifteen years working for the dailies, and I've done a lot of sort of book writing and magazine writing ever since, and I'm not one of these embittered and cynical old journalists, but this is a bunch of reporters embedded at the Darcy McGhee pub in Ottawa trying to make a nuisance of themselves."

    Listen to the whole Rex Murphy interview with Glavin here:

    http://vladtepesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/

    • biff, do you honestly not get it, or are you just so partisan you don't care about anything else other than your guy wins? Nobody cares about the Taliban. Nobody. What we do care about is OUR ethics. We have determined some time ago that torture is bad. We didn't determine torture is bad unless it's to this guy, or that guy does it, or how they treat us. In spite of how much we disagree with their ideology, they are still human beings, and not being subject to torture is a human right. It is a big deal to those of us who value human rights that we not be complicit in torture.

      I mean, biff, you disagree with my ideology too. If Harper gets a majority, will I be tortured if I do something bad, like disagree with him? I know, you look upon the prospect with pleasure. but I'm sure you can see I'm not so keen.

      • Quite the slandeous statement,

        that I wish you to be tortured.

        Yes, and I'm the one with the problem with hyperpartisanship.

        As for comparing our petty political differences with a people who have been brutalized by the taliban – had their children killed, wives stoned, men hung – some roughing up by captors that were previously victims of this monstrosity (which in historical terms is monumentally free of vengence),

        shows the type of out-of-touchness, that allows folks to generate the shrill faux outrage exhibited here and elsewhere.

        • Sorry, I guess it was unfair of me to anticipate your reaction. But biff, do you really not see? We are talking about degrees now. Granted, our petty political differences are a long way down the scale, but where does it end? How about those scumbags who rape little children. A little torture's good for them, right? So what about murderers, then thieves, then pickpockets, then me. It is much better to make the stand at no torture whatsoever, than to wonder where the line's going to be. Once it is acceptable to torture these people, it is very easy to inch the line up bit by bit.

          • W'll have to disageee,

            but happy new years to you and yours!

            And to the rest of the gang here at Macleans.

            Cheers,

            Biff

          • Thanks, Biff! Have a wonderful new decade yourself.

  18. "Walk, chew gum" = "“This is the time to recalibrate,…"

    I had the same thought about 'recalibration'.

  19. Hey, Jarrid – small problem! Chretien had the support of a majority of Members of Parliament. He wasn't avoiding the result of a majority vote of Parliament when he prorogued.

    I know these little nuances of constitutional government don't matter to Tories anymore, which is why I'm not going to be a Tory anymore.

    Still, I thought I'd mention it.

    • Chrétien's majority made prorogation all the more serious because the opposition had no remedy. Here they have one. They can censure the government on March 3rd when Parliament reconvenes.

      For a Tory, you sure picked up quickly on spouting Liberal talking points.

      Happy New Year, Tiggy.

      • Only you could refer to Responsible Government as a "liberal talking point"

        How sad.

        • You know what's sad Richard? Harper adjourns the reconvening of Parliament for 15 days and the left/lib media goes berserk.

          That Liberal partisans like you do it is expected. That the media carries the leftist parties' water here in Canada is just plain sad.

          • 1) I'm Not a Liberal. In fact I kinda hated them until people like you spouting untrue nonsense made me defend them.
            2) I know you *think* that you're convincing everybody that this is nothing but a "leftist" hissyfit, but your attempts at belittling this are not working.

          • You're a Liberal or a dipper. You're a reliable left/lib partisan commenter. A Harper hater. It's no crime Richard, you're entilted to your opinions, but most Canadians don't share your extreme left/lib views.

            When Harper gets his majority, I hope you won't be one of those lefties who start whining about wanting to leave the country. It's such a self-indulgent schtick.

  20. "Modern Conservative Rhetoric: now 95% more context-free!"

    (There is no room for context when your argument boils down to "Simpsons Did It!")

  21. Hey, Jarrid – small problem! Chretien had the support of a majority of Members of Parliament. He wasn't avoiding the result of a majority vote of Parliament when he prorogued.

    • Boo hoo Liberal sock-puppet.

      Will the Liberals screw up the courage to take down the Big Bad Conservatives down in March to punish them for this outrage?

  22. It's not just missing a few weeks in February. No committee meetings can take place, and 30 bills will die on the order papers. Not only will Parliament do absolutely nothing for most of the winter, much of what it has done in the Fall sitting has also been swept aside.

  23. Methinks somebody needs a primer on the definition of "partisan".

    Tell ya what, if by some stroke of insane luck Harper actually does get a majority? I'll buy you a coke.

    • You're non-partisan? You had me fooled Richard.

      I'm glad you'll be sticking around though. It'll probably not last for more than another 4 years in any case, although, who knows.

  24. "You had me fooled Richard."

    From what I've seen here, that's not the hardest thing in the world to accomplish. ;)