Just another reason to think Paul Martin Jr was a tool
I'm sure that someone else has pointed this out already, but it bears repeating. If Paul Martin wasn't such a dithering idiot, Stephen Harper wouldn't have a full 18 Senate seats that he could stack this month. Several of those vacancies are holdovers from the Martin years.
Yet another reason to blame Paul Martin for the current mess that is our federal politics!
Labels: Paul Martin, Senate, Stephen Harper
Recommend this Post
posted by Matt @ 8:38 pm
6 comments
6 Comments:
So he's a tool because jhe should have justed appoint a large new bunch the old-fashioned way, and during a period where the confidence of the House of Commons in his government was in doubt.
... leaving it for Harper to appoint HIS bunch the old fashioned way, during a period when the confidence of the House of Commons has been LOST. Because Harper doesn't care about doing the right thing, he cares about power.
I'm sure we get a profound moral victory in this one, for what it's worth.
The 2004 Martin government could still be in power, complete with national daycare program, accord with first nations, healthcare accord, atlantic accord. But who voted to have Harper in stead?
Thanks Jack.
James,
If you're going to resort to blind partisanship here, I'm going to have to rebut you. To answer your question, more Canadians voted in 2006 to have Harper instead of Martin. Scream at Jack all you like, but the voters didn't like Paul Martin.
Now, I happen to think that we need some form of proportional representation, but that would not change the fact that in the 2006 election many voters looked at the Liberals under Paul Martin and said no thanks. And then they did so again in 2008. Conversely, support for Jack Layton and the NDP has been growing.
Stop with the "coulda, shoulda, woulda".
I disagree with this whole thing. Sure, Paul Martin could have appointed 18 senators while in office, but would that have made it right? I think the term "dithering" is just a buzzword. Paul Martin was probably one of the best Finance Ministers in Canada's history, and I'll argue that point with anyone. Harper didn't necessarily win because of Paul Martin, but because the Liberal Party itself is terribly organized and managed. Harper just proved himself to be a better campaigner than the Martin Liberals, heading a party that was better organized, and could use the Sponsorship Scandal to its advantage. The Liberal Party in both 2006 and 2008 were proven completely incapable of keeping up with the Conservative campaign machine, and while in 2008 I believe Dion was very detrimental to the party's success, I do not think that the same was the case in 2006.
Post a Comment
<< Home