Fire MacKay…..and Stronach too
March 25, 2005 · By Peter Rempel
Let’s face it: During and immediately after the convention, we all had a stake in minimizing the importance of MacKay’s temper tantrum over Scott Reid’s proposed constitutional amendment. I don’t feel the need to be restrained as a result of that any longer; the good media coverage of the convention has come and gone and we are now left with the facts that a) MacKay screwed Harper over, casting a wet blanket over positive coverage of Harper’s outstanding speech at the assembly; b) his premonitions of the party’s death if the amendment was adopted were a thinly veiled threat; and, c) he possessed a blatant ulterior motive all along.
And it is not controversial to say that someone so willing to hurt the party in this manner should not be the deputy leader of the party. The deputy leader should be willing to go to the wire for the party; John Reynolds, not MacKay, should have the job right now. Equality of ridings was a deal-breaker? What was the deal-breaker you had with David Orchard, Peter? If MacKay still retains illusions of glory from his PC days, he would be wise to relinquish them, and quickly; the PC Party is dead and gone and we are now attempting to build a new party. Right now, MacKay is a liability to the party and, as such, has no business being the deputy leader.
As for the ulterior motive: As Sean McCormick astutely pointed out, it is Belinda which stands to benefit from the current equality of ridings arrangement. With Frank’s moolah, Belinda can literally buy up assembly and leadership convention votes in ridings with nascent constituency organizations. She did it before, she’ll do it again. Funny how no reporter seemed to grasp this fact in their coverage of MacKay’s tantrum.
Harper needs to protect his leadership from Belinda’s money. (I am not the only one who remains embarrassed with her speaking abilities.) As such, he should demote MacKay and, for good measure, strip Stronach of her critic post as well. The further they get from the limelight, the better.
Cross-posted to Rempelia Prime
Gay rights here, not womens rights in afganistan.
We seem to have lost our focus here the conservatives may have given the women the right to vote, but if we lose gay rights such as teaching it in school, they might make it illegal for women to workl out of the home. So by promoting gay sex to young people we are really protecting women.
I think that is a rather large stretch Liberal white gay 59. I am not sure you can make those links, actually (unless, of course, you are just another name for George / Aaron in which case, we have all come to expect those large leeps in logic).