Zipperfish Zipperfish:
You say "Fuck people are stupid." I don't agree that they are. I think they know when they're being played.
Well I also said it was a crass political maneuver.
$1:
There are a whole number of reasons this one stands out--and it does stand out despite protestations of business as usual, as evidenced by the "legs" the story has proven to have in the press.
There are a whole lot of reasons why this stands out. I think you can only say that because you, me and the guy next to you were never paying attention to previous prorogues. That it has a lot of traction in the press is just life immitating art. There's only a Facebook page because of a lot of globe and mail blogs, and the FB site only has this many members because it got more traction on other networks including tv. Story wouldn't have gotten anywhere if Lindsy Lowhan broke out of rehab or some one off their meds kicked a puppy to death.
I don't think the media is bias towards anything but making you read them. Sensationalism, whatever it takes. The Globe and Mail over the past weeks has had the lack of shame to run opinion pieces, editorials and blogs as their front-running story for 3 weeks now. THey hype, then the partisans hype, then they hype some more.
As to "a whole number of reasons this one stands out" I really have to wonder why you say that. Why? How exactly do you know? Is there a web site I'm missing that applies cynical reasoning to every proruge there's been? How do you
know Pearson never prorogued to time some political maneuver? Since not much was made of it when Chretien did it to avoid this inquiry or that, how do you
know Mulroney didn't do something similar? Or anyone else.
I suppose one could take that lack of info or insight currently out there on other prorogues and why they may have come about at the time that they did as a sign that maybe they weren't abused before Chretien/Harper came around. On the other hand though, I simply find it too hard to believe, given the rules they way they are and the nature of politics, that if the PM get's to set the date/timing, then the PM will set a date/time that best suits their interest, for anynumber of reasons.
A lot of people/articels/blogs out there condemning this as the end of our democracy that are suspiciously devoid of any examples beside the last 10 years and I don't think that's because there aren't any.