[OnTheIce]

DerbyX DerbyX:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

For all you people, left and right, I want to know how YOU would handle this situation if you were Stephen Harper.

Would you leave the seats empty?

Would you fill them with some new-ish process?

Harper could have filled it with non-partisan people, politicians with a reputation for integrity but he didn't.

He instead choose to fill the seats with his cronies.

Regardless who Harper put into place, you'd all label him/her IMMEDIATELY as a Tory Senator....so it wouldn't matter how non-partisan these people could have been.

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Regardless who Harper put into place, you'd all label him/her IMMEDIATELY as a Tory Senator....so it wouldn't matter how non-partisan these people could have been.

You mean like you'd label Lib senate appointees? At least Martin bridged gaps and appointed a NDPer senator only to have the NDP disown him.

While they might indeed be labelled as such there would be evidence they weren't such if he appointed somebody like Bill Casey.

He didn't and just like the deficit, income trusts, floor crossers, and senate appointees Harper choose not to stand on principle but on political partisanship.

4 years ago when all the con hacks were claiming Harper would change all this I got called a partisan hack for suggesting that it was the system and not the Liberals. Now I am proven right because all the things the Libs did were for the same reasons Harper is now doing them.

[Proculation]

Well Jacques Demers is not very partisan. He doesn't even know what a senator does.

[DerbyX]

Proculation Proculation:

Well Jacques Demers is not very partisan. He doesn't even know what a senator does.

He is a real head scratcher. I can't recall ever hearing his name with regards to politics before. has he ever ran for office in any capacity?

My guess is Harper is trying to buoy support in QC by appointing him.

[Unsound]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

For all you people, left and right, I want to know how YOU would handle this situation if you were Stephen Harper.

Would you leave the seats empty?

Would you fill them with some new-ish process?

I would do pretty much what Harper has done. He realized that reform was getting nowhere as long as it was being blocked by the senate so he had to appoint people to fill those openings. If he hadn't people would be bitching about him leaving senate seats vacant, and of course he would've put reform even further out of reach because chances are liberals will form a gov't again sometime before senate reform is achieved. And that liberal gov't would obviously fill the seats with people who have no onterest in reform.
Harper really didn't have too many options here. About the only thing I would've done differently is to have never said that I would never appoint senators. That's the thing that's making him look bad.
Hopefully the appointees will step down in 8 years as they've said they would and we'll start seeing elections sometime before then.

[poquas]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Sad is that you're waiting here for an answer while I'm out with friends popping back a few....and you're questioning others on whether or not they have a job?

Start with the definition of reform, can you handle that? Good.

Now, go back to 2006 and look at the bill Harper brought forth for the Senate.

I know what you're going to say, that it doesn't meet your standard of "reform" as it didn't go far enough.

But then again, had Harper abolished the Senate, you'd still find fault as that's what you do.

Is that the problem here? Popping back a few more than you should?

The 2006 “proposal” was nowhere near sufficient, and of course it wouldn’t pass.
Harper couldn’t abolish the Senate if he wanted to. That again addresses your lack of understanding how our government works.
Any changes (or stacking) Harper makes now will only be undone the next time the Liberals get into power and we get to start the whole thing all over again.

Reform as initially proposed which requires a change in the constitution will never happen. I wish that weren’t true, but thems the facts.

My objection to this whole thing is not that Harper isn’t entitled to do what he’s doing, but that he’s blatantly hypocritical and outright dishonest about it. Had he stated that he’ll appoint any provincially elected senators, he could have gone a long way in avoiding looking like such an asshole, but noooooo, He plays the same game the Liberals played in the same way and pretends it’s different.

It’s not.

[OnTheIce]

poquas poquas:

The 2006 “proposal” was nowhere near sufficient, and of course it wouldn’t pass.
Harper couldn’t abolish the Senate if he wanted to. That again addresses your lack of understanding how our government works.

Ok, so "reform" to you simply isn't change, it's a complete overhaul. I'm sorry his changes weren't sufficient enough for you to be considered actual reform.

[poquas]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

poquas poquas:

The 2006 “proposal” was nowhere near sufficient, and of course it wouldn’t pass.
Harper couldn’t abolish the Senate if he wanted to. That again addresses your lack of understanding how our government works.

Ok, so "reform" to you simply isn't change, it's a complete overhaul. I'm sorry his changes weren't sufficient enough for you to be considered actual reform.

It wasn't just me, now was it? Temporary tinkering wasn't gaoing to do anything for anyone.

I posted a site in the "other" Harper/senate. Go educate yourself.

[PimpBrewski123]

Proculation Proculation:

Well Jacques Demers is not very partisan. He doesn't even know what a senator does.

That will be funny how Gerard D. Laflaque will have a field day with this one.

Perhaps he will be able to market his Glucosamine to his senate friends.

[Lemmy]

Funny that Harper, today, appoints an NDP-er as US Ambassador. Maybe he's not a total partisan hack after all.

[poquas]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Funny that Harper, today, appoints an NDP-er as US Ambassador. Maybe he's not a total partisan hack after all.

Hell, he picked a bright guy and it keeps him out of federal politics!

Layton is probably thrilled too.

[ridenrain]

They did just have a meeting.. but they didn't agree to anything.