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, March 24, 2010

NP's Don Martin on Iggy: "When they pity you in politics, YOU'RE HALFWAY DEAD"

Don Martin at the National Post has penned a rather good review of what last night's Liberal voting fiasco really means... "When they pity you in politics, you're halfway dead."
Don Martin: Ignatieff's so low, even Tories are sympathetic

Stiff competition for the worst misstep of this gaffe-plagued parliamentary session ended with a no-contest loser on Tuesday when amateur miscalculations and aloof behavior backfired on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, sending his bewildered MPs slumping in their seats.

A needlessly provocative Liberal move to sneak abortion back on the agenda, aimed at dividing the Conservatives, actually drove a wedge deep into the Official Opposition. In a result political veterans cannot recall happening for years, if ever, the Liberals were defeated by their own MPs on a motion Mr. Ignatieff had steadfastly maintained was a defining issue. In the words of a senior Liberal MP: "Ouch".

Whatever procedural mixups took place, the damage caused by Liberals rising in person or by proxy to defeat their leader on a rare, firm party position is hard to understate.

Mr. Ignatieff's leadership has been tainted, the Liberal pro-choice policy has been trampled from within and a black-and-white difference with the Conservatives has turned into a foggy shade of grey. Pro-life forces have fired a kill shot at their own leader. How ironic.

More than anything this mess is a stinging indictment of Michael Ignatieff's connection with his own MPs, some who are demoralized at being excluded from this weekend's party think tank, called to ponder a preview of Canada in 2017.

A leader who can't enforce a vote in a minority Parliament with the backing of both opposition partners cannot be taken seriously as someone who will deliver a Liberal vision seven years down the road when, at the rate his performance is deteriorating, he'll be a former Liberal leader.

Labels: ,


  • At Wed. Mar. 24, 11:00:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger The_Iceman said…

    How much do you want to bet that the next crack to form in Liberal unity will be on accusing our government and troops of active participation in war crimes.

  • At Thu. Mar. 25, 01:01:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    "In a result political veterans cannot recall happening for years, if ever, the Liberals were defeated by their own MPs on a motion Mr. Ignatieff had steadfastly maintained was a defining issue."

    Three Liberals did not defeat the motion. Even those Liberal voters, plus all of the Liberals who abstained or were elsewhere did not defeat the motion. There were members of the other parties who were not present. (I don't know what parties they were from. I'm just adding 144 and 138 and doing the math).

    The 144 people who voted against the motion defeated the motion. The vast majority of them were Tories. I don't see how the situation could be as important as people here seem to think.

    Motion made. People vote. It passes or does not. Move on to the next item of business... That sounds like that democratic process. Even (or especially) if the outcome isn't a fait accompli.

    But if the defeat of the motion is a problem, it may be a problem for the Tories. I think past polling data suggests that most Canadians would agree with the motion--even (or perhaps especially)--the jab at George Bush. All of the Tories are on the record voting against it. Some Liberal MPs (with a long "pro-life" record) voted as they wanted on a matter of conscience (wasn't that a Conservative position?).

    May I quote the motion ( the motion?):

    March 19, 2010 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with the policy of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, and all other G8 governments last year in L’Aquila, Italy;

    that the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths; and

    that the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a “global gag rule” that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning.


    If it were my motion, I would have worded it differently. I would have made it an issue of whether or not we would make available THE SAME RANGE of reproductive options that are available to Canadian women. And if not, why not? If abortion is wrong, it is wrong here too, and we shouldn't be enforcing moral principles abroad and not here at home.

    What do you think?


Post a Comment

<< Home