Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

And the King of Prorougation is... Bob Rae?

Whodathunkit... turns out that the guy who's most prorogued a parliamentary body in Canada is none other than one of Mr. Harper's loudest prorogue critics... Bob "NDP Ontario Prorouge King" Rae.

The columnist who blew the lid on that hypoGrit, Christina Blizzard, also penned another gem yesterday, following up on some of the blowback she received from the left for that article, and bringing forward a suggestion for Mr. Harper that I'm all in favour of... CALLING THE LIBERALS ON THEIR BLUFF.

Labels: , , , ,


  • At Wed. Jan. 27, 03:18:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Bert said…


    Perfect name.

  • At Wed. Jan. 27, 04:08:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Well, Liberals, Bob is your Uncle! What do they say about relatives and friends - at least you can CHOOSE your friends, your STUCK with your relatives. Cheers. FernStAlbert

  • At Wed. Jan. 27, 04:16:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Go ahead - keep on underestimating how this is playing out on the street.

    People with absolutely no interest in politics are telling me they're furious with Harper's vacation.

    You're going to have to spike some more rallies with those Adolf conservatives.

  • At Wed. Jan. 27, 04:23:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Whatever Anon... maybe some already anti-Harper types are still talking about it, but I don't hear ANY NORMAL people talking about it... AT ALL.

  • At Wed. Jan. 27, 04:51:00 p.m. EST, Blogger maryT said…

    I have not heard anyone talking about this faux outrage on the street, in Tims, in the malls or anywhere else. Lots different from the talk re the coalition, which was everywhere, from the guy filling my gastank, grocery clerks, people at Church, anniversay parties, and just about everywhere. Those people are still afraid they will try it again and will vote to make sure it doesn't happen.

  • At Wed. Jan. 27, 09:24:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Powell lucas said…

    To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill: Bob Rae is a socialist in socialist clothing. And, being a socialist that means that rules only apply to the other guy.

  • At Wed. Jan. 27, 09:30:00 p.m. EST, Blogger kursk said…

    If the left thinks they can make hay, let's do it.

    Lefties, tell your leaders to force an election.

    ...but of course you won't, and your leaders won't, because they are afraid of losing BIG TIME..

  • At Wed. Jan. 27, 09:38:00 p.m. EST, Blogger James Bow said…

    I remember Rae's Days, personally. And I remember that there was criticism over his decision to prorogue three times during his nearly five years in power.

    True, he didn't do it while a committee was investigating his government for potential problems, as is the case with Harper here, and he didn't do it in such a way that he killed thirty of his own bills that he'd previously deemed "critical", but it did mean that Queen's Park was out of session for four months early in 2005, and people were irked by that. Then, as now, people said "get back to work, you lazy bums!" This, combined with the fact that the New Democrats held onto power for significantly longer than the traditional four year mandate, solidified in people's minds that the government had grown desperate and in desperate need of replacement.

    And, of course, the following June, the electorate rendered their judgment: the NDP were reduced to third party status in Queen's Park.

    With that in mind, since you want to compare Harper's prorogation to those of Bob Rae, I'm guessing you will want there to be similar consequences as well. With this in mind, I salute you for stating, here and now, that you'll be voting against Harper's Conservatives in the next federal election.


  • At Wed. Jan. 27, 09:47:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Scott Tribe said…

    Yea.. all those normal people are just telling that to the pollsters, CC, which is why your party has dropped 15 points in 15 days as Mercer said, and you're now running in a dead heat.

    I'd like to know where you come up with half of your tripe, CC.

  • At Wed. Jan. 27, 09:48:00 p.m. EST, Blogger James Bow said…

    P.S. I'm not a "normal" person? Interesting.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 09:39:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    I'd love to know where on earth you guys keep getting the "15 points in 15 days" mantra... when were the Tories ever at 46%? I don't recall ever seeing those kind of numbers... I mean of all people, you KNOW I'd have gloated over them if they had ever existed.

    Again, love the way you guys are spinning this one... it's more accurately a 10 point slide over the last three months, which we've seen a couple of times over this current mandate.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 09:57:00 a.m. EST, Blogger maryT said…

    And according to Bourque who has the latest polls up, the cbc have been lying all morning. Are we surprised.
    AngusReid: Con 33% Lib 29% Ndp 19% Bq 10% Grn 7% ...
    Ekos: Con 31.6% Lib 31.1% Ndp 14.6% Grn 11% Bq 9.1% ...
    Decima: Con 32% Lib 31% Ndp 15% Grn 10% Bq 10% ...
    Another thing to remember is that Ekos is a cbc poll.
    Why are the CROP numbers for Quebec so different.
    Layton/Iggy are planning to overthrow our elected government. There is a name for those people.
    I also think this is a desperate attempt to keep libs in control of the Senate. By 2014 there will be 27 vacancies, and most of them are liberal with a couple of PC in there.
    IMHO Layton and Iggy are Mugabe wanabees.
    They both know they could never win an election, to even form a minority government, so they plan to steal power. Wonder how many of those 27 seats have been promised to the giggles clan.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 10:10:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "IMHO Layton and Iggy are Mugabe wanabees."

    Not cool MaryT... likening these jokers to a murduring thug is not cool at all. We call them out when they liken our guy to Hitler, let's not stoop to their level. (because you know we ARE better than that)

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 10:32:00 a.m. EST, Blogger maryT said…

    I was referring to the fact he has declared himself president for life, as have other dictators. But if the liberal can say our troops are guilty of war crimes, with the ok of our government. Layton is upset because he has lost his power to blackmail the PM, like the NDP did so often with the liberal minority governments.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 01:10:00 p.m. EST, Blogger James Bow said…

    "Layton/Iggy are planning to overthrow our elected government. There is a name for those people.

    If that word is anything other than democratic, I would say that you have a fairly profound misunderstanding of how the system is supposed to work.

    Under our system, we elect MPs to represent us in parliament, and from the MPs party affiliation, we gain our prime minister. We do not vote directly for our prime minister. We simply don't. And as has been the case for the past three elections, the majority of MPs have been elected by constituents who have voted for parties other than the one sitting in the government's chair. Even in the last election, when the Conservatives came within a dozen seats of majority power, they did so with the support of less than 4 out of 10 Canadian voters.

    Now, really, what are those majority of MPs who were elected under banners other than that of the government supposed to do now that they're sitting in parliament? I ask this seriously: just because just under 40% of Canadians voted in favour of the Conservative government, are the representatives elected by the remaining 60% supposed to just sit down and shut up?

    Because being forced to vote in a way that you do not want to vote -- a way which doesn't represent your constituents -- simply because it would upset the government, isn't democratic in the least. There is a word for that.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 01:59:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "There is a word for that"

    Yes James, there is a word for that in our "democratic" system. It's actually a compound word... NON-CONFIDENCE. Which is generally followed by another word in our democratic system... ELECTION.

    Tell you guys to either put up, or shut up. If they don't like the direction Harper is taking, THEY SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 02:08:00 p.m. EST, Blogger maryT said…

    Those other parties must be up front and say they will form a coalition before the election, then people will have a choice. Trying to do it after the fact is a coup.
    Who knows that threat might give the libs a majority. But, in reality you know they might win a very small minority at best, and will not make gains in the west.
    And if they were elected with seats in just Ont and Que, with a few in Atlantic Canada, watch for the west to start separation plans.
    The East will never get our oil or the chance to ruin our economy again. We still remember the NEP and the Trudeau salute, plus Chretein saying he has no use for Alberta and the west.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 04:04:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Saro said…

    I like how Iggy's prorogation proposal was hammered by the media right after he presented his ideas. Hard to change something that's very constitutional.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 04:31:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Bert said…

    Hey Anon4:16, concerning your little link, supposedly proving those "Harper = Hilter" posters were Conservatives in disguise, you'll forgive me if I don't believe you.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 06:09:00 p.m. EST, Blogger James Bow said…

    "Tell you guys to either put up, or shut up. If they don't like the direction Harper is taking, THEY SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT."

    Well, that's sort of hard to do given that Harper's prorogued parliament, isn't it? But a motion of non-confidence is something of a blunt instrument. It would be nicer if we could just get parliament to work more cooperatively.

    And, yes, we've been going down a long road of concentrating power away from parliament and into the PMO straight from Trudeau's days. That doesn't make it right. It's worth noting that Chretien was criticized by Stephen Harper when he prorogued in 2003, even though Chretien had a better excuse (he was leaving, a new PM was coming in, so bring parliament to a close and let PM the PM open with a new throne speech). We shouldn't need to throw a government out in order for it to do its job properly. I'm not opposed to the prorogation process, I'm opposed to the abuse of the process, as we saw under Rae, Chretien and now Harper.

    If you will recall, there was some rumour that Paul Martin might prorogue parliament back in 2005, to avoid a non-confidence motion and call an election on _his_ schedule rather than that of the opposition (February 2006 instead of December 2005). The fact that he even _thought_ about this was seen, at the time, as a gross abuse of democracy, and another reason to punish the Liberals by sending them to the political wilderness. And yet, this is what Harper has done, twice now.

    If we let this go, we end up excusing similar or worse abuses of power should the Liberals ever get back the reins, and that's not a good thing. For many of us, this isn't about what Harper is doing, but the contempt behind it. It's not okay for any prime minister to do this, regardless of his partisan affiliation, and I'm pleased that some of the voters' anger has provoked suggestions of changes to take the power of prorogation out of the prime minister's hands and into the hands of parliament. I certainly don't want Ignatieff to abuse the process as well.

    "watch for the west to start separation plans... ...The East will never get our oil."

    This is off topic but, given that Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces are paying the world price for oil and importing it from the United States, separation isn't going to change that. We're dealing with a North American market, now, and that's going to increase, rather than decrease, in the days ahead. Indeed, political separation might make sense. Political power is heading away from our national governments towards trans-national agreements and regional administrative blocs, so maybe it's time to question whether or not the federal government is still relevant, or will remain so. I talked more about this here.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 07:05:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    James, a thoughtful response... thanks. I appreciate it when people post things that actually foster DISCUSSION, as opposed to argument.

    I too would LOVE for Parliament to "work"... however, when the Opposition seems to take exception to EVERYTHING you stand for, I think you'll agree that it's somewhat difficult to accomplish.

    I somewhat agree with your comments re: the PMO, and am glad to see a Liberal who's willing to point the finger at PET. And for the record, I'm not too concerned about Chretien's 2003 prorogue, nor anyone's for that matter. The post was more pointing out the irony of Rae taking Harper to task over the issue, when he was far more "abusive" in his use of the convention.

    As for Martin considering doing it, that WOULD have been a huge abuse because it would have been used solely to keep a dying Government on life support. Harper's is very different as it did not keep him in power when the Opposition was looking to remove him... last time I checked, Iggy's already said several times that he's comfortable leaving Mr. Harper in the PMO... much to the chagrin of all those protesters last week, I'm sure.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 08:34:00 p.m. EST, Blogger James Bow said…

    Point of order: I'm not a Liberal. I haven't voted for them since 1993. I'm still a political free agent -- likely to vote Green, but haven't made a final decision yet.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 10:12:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    I stand corrected... and my apologies. I thought I'd read on your blog that you were a Liberal, and as several Liberals have linked to your various posts, I made that incorrect leap of logic.

  • At Thu. Jan. 28, 11:19:00 p.m. EST, Blogger James Bow said…

    You may have been thinking of James Bowie, who is a partisan Liberal, and has been mistaken for me on occasion.

    But, no, at the time, I hated Trudeau, and thoroughly endorsed Mulroney (even though I was 12). Well, _that_ didn't go well.

    In my political life, I have voted Liberal, NDP, Green and PC (most recently in 2000). I belonged to Mel Hurtig's National Party in 1993, but didn't vote for them, because they didn't have a candidate in my riding. I call myself a centrist, but that doesn't mean that I'm always sympathetic to the Liberals. It's the difference between pragmatism and opportunism.

  • At Fri. Jan. 29, 03:41:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hey nutjob, the end of the world is coming, you just need to swim to the bottom of the ocean to meet your god

  • At Fri. Jan. 29, 03:49:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    No need to take a swim... I'll just wait for my front row seat upon His return to Jerusalem to take up His rightful place as King.

    You're welcome to join us!


Post a Comment

<< Home