A comment - reposted in full

Thanks for joining the debate "Sam". Here's his comment for all...

A lot of posturing and a lot of people upset over the appointments of two cabinet ministers. But is it duplicity and a sell out?

I won't attempt to justify Mr. Harper for his decisions. But being pragmatic, I can see the logic of what he did.

In the case of Emerson, he (Mr. Harper) approached Mr. Emerson to join his government and to represent the greater Vancouver area at the cabinet table. I do not know the motives of either men, but I do know that pragmatically, Mr. Harper felt he had few options in getting representation around the cabinet table from the three major cities in this country. He did what he felt was needed to have a broad based inclusive government.

Appearances can deceive, and there are risks with what Mr. Harper has done, but he is not governed by appearances, but the grim realities of cities not being representented at the cabinet table. He did the pragmatic thing. He offered Mr. Emerson an olive branch in the name of inclusiveness and non-partisan politics. Both men stand to lose in the public eye, but they were elected to conduct politics and to govern.

There is more than enough blame being attributed to Mr. Harper for this "compromise", but how many people in the cities that did not elect a single Conservative would be screaming for attention, money and influence, if Mr. Harper had not reached this compromise? How many leftists and centrists, would have screamed bloody murder, and Mr. Harper could have played hard ball, and said, "Hey, you did not vote for any of our candidates, so tough luck! You made your choice, you are now left out in the cold! Scat! Leave us alone to govern!" He could have done that, but he didn't. It is not in his nature to do that, politically or ethically. He had to find a way to be inclusive. He made a tough choice, and as PM, he has to make those tough choices in order to govern well.

Did he "sell out" on his proposed "accountability" legislation? I don't believe so.

He invited someone in from the cold, so that could represent the interests of a region that without the invitation, would be left out in the political tundra and excluded from the decision making process, devoid of influence, and devoid of attention from the Feds in Ottawa.

Criticize if you must, but you cannot judge Mr. Harper for trying to govern with the best broad based cabinet as possible. He cannot be faulted for that. The ones who are complaining the most are the ones who voted Liberal.

These same people should look long and hard in the mirror, and ask themselves why they voted that way, guaranteeing exclusion from the table where decisions are made. They (the left) called it strategic voting, I call it strategic blunder. Mr. Harper has bitten the butllet to include the people of Vancouver at the table. They should give him a break.

As far as Mr. Fortier is concerned, Mr. Harper used the latitude allocated to him under the "current" system. He has violated nothing, although he prefers an elected Senate, currently no such beast exists. For people to lambaste him for going against that principle is lacking in couth and courtesy. Mr. Harper is using the existing system to bring about as broad and inclusive cabinet as possible, and as in the case with Vancouver, Montreal needs someone from the city at the table. Mr. Harper has used the options at his disposal, and as he stated, Mr. Fortier will run for election in the next election.

We need to remember that no one really knew that the Conservatives would do as well in Quebec as they did. Some projected 2 to 4 seats, and they got 10, but none from Montreal itself, which gave Mr. Harper the same problem as Vancouver.

Mr. Harper felt the city needed representation from someone who lives in the city. He laid out the condition that the position as a senator for Mr. Fortier is a temporary one. The bottom line is the creation of a broad based coalition to govern, constituted from small c conservatives, to social conservatives, to progressive conservatives, to fiscal conservatives, to centrist former liberals.

Mr. Harper has held together the diverse CPC, and will attempt to do the same with this cabinet. He made pragmatic choices, and in my mind necessary choices to include Vancouver and Montreal.

To the ones screaming...just stop long enough to think it through and take a big breath and relax.

We don't want or need an election any time soon. We need to see Mr. Harper govern for at least two years. Having the input of the major cities at the decision table is going to be crucial. There are a lot of urban issues that will need to be addressed. Having cabinet ministers from these regions is not only the only credible thing to do, but the necessary thing to do. All these urban areas need to have a voice, be it Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. NOW, they have a voice.

Like I said, the electorate from these cities could have had direct influence, but they chose to resist change, and chose to be dogmatic and not embrace the opportunity afforded to them election night. They could have paid the price for it by having zero influence. Mr. Harper could have paid the same price. He chose to govern, and to govern with a non-partisan cabinet, with many viewpoints and opinions, and to be inclusive of those regions that rejected him and the CPC.

The very least these people could do is hold judgment, for at least the end of the year. Then, and only then, can we all discern and see the results and the effects of this government. Let's all give Mr. Harper a break!

Cheers,
Sam