Garth Turner: A Big Bundle of Contradictions
February 11, 2006 · By Peter Rempel
Garth is now considering bolting his party just weeks after being elected because he is coming under fire for criticizing Emerson for…..bolting his party just weeks after being elected. What does credibility sound like while it’s swirling down a toilet?
Steve Janke asks: Will Garth resign and run in a by-election if he leaves the party that he was elected under? Isn’t that what he’s been calling on Emerson to do?
Meanwhile: MK Braaten reports on how Canadians have tuned out the media and Garth.
And: Garth is slowly but surely losing defenders: “Note to Garth “so indignant about floorcrossing I’m thinking of crossing the floor” Turner - you look bad. Media hound bad. You need to look in a mirror and figure out whether this is about principle - or just about you. And that’s coming from someone who has been cutting you a lot of slack.”
_Reminds me of former Bratpack Liberal, John Nunziata of York South-Weston (T.O.). He was successfully re-elected as an independant after the GST elimination promise.
Garth is just sour because he was left out of cabinet. He is very egocentric. Try winning in Halton as an independent Garth. You are a washed up whiner.
A principled person doesn’t go around shouting: ‘look how principled I am,’ he waits for the world to write his epitaph.
Not only is Turner unprincipled, his egotistical, navel-gazing, pity-me blather is reviling. Even those who think Emerson should resign and stand for re-election must see that his smug self-righteousness doesn’t just damage Harper and Emerson, but implies everyone who doesn’t agree with him is both unprincipled and spineless.
I wouldn’t want him on my team.
Stuck with him…
unless he wants to go around…
There are worse things than a media hound…
I believe we just voted a pack of them out…
Ignore your press clippings Garth…
These are the same people that with bury you in a heartbeat…
and pat themselves on the back about how smart they are…
I found out what the problem with Garth is - check out the bottom of his blog - it say’s:
“Copyright © Hon. Garth Turner, P.C., M.P. - Member of Parliament for Halton, Ontario”
Notice it says P.C not Conservative - Garth still thinks he is in the Mulroney/Cambell Government.
Or did he fool us all and is a Progressive Canadian plant?
no pale,
P.C. stands for Privy Council
as in he’s a member by virtue of being in cabinet for one brief, shining moment :)
Ha, we should start calling him a Kim Campbell Conservative. Ouch.
Someone should print him a t-shirt: “A proud KCC in 93′ because it’s ok to be a loser!”
It’s a strange performance for sure. At one point while channel surfing I found him on two stations at the same time. He seems to be on a campaign of some sort–a man with a mission.
From Turner’s weblog:
“Now the word is spreading that I am considering quitting the Conservative Party and sitting in Parliament as an independent…Hey…the story’s wrong…Maybe the combination of a hurried interview on a balky cell phone with a reporter out to turn me into bigger news than I am. Whatever. Still wrong…Garth Turner is a Conservative, and has been so for decades, like my parents before me. I believe in conservative values, support the Conservative Party, and ran proudly to be a Conservative candidate with Stephen Harper as leader.”
If Turner did resign and run as an independent in a by-election he would win in a landslide, sort of like whomever was to oppose Emerson in his riding. People respond to principles, and a lack thereof.
GT said he didn’t agree with floor-crossers: fine. GH told media he thought Emerson should step down and get re-elected in byelection. Again fine, as it confirms his stance.
SH said he didn’t think floor-crossing should be stopped. Fine. He then accepted a floor-crosser into the party. Again fine, as it confirms his stance.
However, GT then said that this appointment undermined the principles of CPC. Now that’s not fine. Unless of course, it is GH who determines the CPC (and its leader’s) principles.
SH did not vote for the bill last fall, and he stated during the campaign that he did not agree with stopping floor-crossing. How much clearer could he be? To now be accused of breaking CPC principles is astounding.
When GH made the principles comment, that’s when I lost total respect for him (and anything else he says). He is being disingenuis at best.
Right on IronLady2!!!!
So any negative comments that SH made about Scott and Belinda crossing the floor must have been disingenuous at best. Fine.
Nope. SH has been entirely consistent. Besides, Harper and Brison were never really in the same party as Brison split because of the merger. Stronach crossed the floor to sit with a government that no longer had the confidence of the House of Commons, and after she had voted that she had no confidence in the Martin government. She traded away responsible government for a cabinet seat.
Sorry guys. I know how painful it is to admit that you’re all a bunch of hypocrites. Stop trying to split hairs and trying to make this sound like it was “entirely different” - it’s not. The only “difference” is that this confirms that the Conservatives cannot honor anything. The only government that does not have the confidence of the population are the conservatives. 63% of Canadians voted agains’t them. Only in a country like Canada could a party form a government with only 37% of the population sharing their ideology.
The honeymoon is over guys. Get ready for the next election. Do yourselfs a favor and own up to hypocrisy of it all.
“The only government that does not have the confidence of the population are the conservatives. 63% of Canadians voted agains’t them. Only in a country like Canada could a party form a government with only 37% of the population sharing their ideology.”
Maybe you should learn something about Canadian government Jason C because your analysis is rather, shall we say, plebeian.
In Canada governments are appointed, they are not elected. They derive their democratic legitimacy by being able to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons on money bills, that means a majority of elected MPs have to support the government when the confidence of the government is in question. That means, and quite clearly in a minority government situation, that politics is not just about ideological bias but also about negotiation, give and take, and the capacity of politicians to be reasonable brokers.
There is no hypocrisy from the Conservatives. Emerson offended the Liberals but certainly not all Canadians. Stronach offended the Conservatives and all Canadians by pawning responsible government, at a crucial time, for a cabinet seat.
The honeymoon never began with certain media outlets in Central Canada, but that just serves to raise the ire of Western Canada, once again. The Toronto Star, the G and M, and even Pierre Bourque are nothing but cynical Liberal hacks, either ignorant of how responsible government works in Canada or are purposefully trying to mislead the public as to what constitutes major political controversy.
Once again George Freeman appears to be lost in a fantasy world. The facts speak for themselves George, end of story.
Facts need interpretation, dip shit. :-)
George Freeman - Watch your language. How useless of you. As I said in a previous post, google things - you might actually learn something. Based on all your posts on “The Politic” I have come to realize that you are seriously misinformed of the issues. Then when someone calls you on it, you reply with more useless squaking. Seriously, don’t quite your day-job to become a political spin-doctor. Your horrible at it.
Oh, sorry Grandma!
ha ha ha … thanks for the indepth analysis … fascinating!
But maybe you should try sucking on a few less scotch mints.
Georgie boy - seriously, try to stick to the point. You’re way off topic. You might have accidently posted something you meant to MSN to some Jr. High School friends. If that is not correct, then try coming up with some real arguements for once.
Hey Willy, I gave arguments. You two bums were too lazy read, too dumb to understand, and too weak to take me to task for them. Other than, of course, to tell me I should surf the internet more, work on being a Google keener.
You want to get serious? Take on what I wrote … posts 15 and 17. Oh yes, and you never did tell me why, magically, facts don’t require interpretation. Maybe you better start there …
Georgie - you’re missing the point again (again). To hold a discussion, a basic background on the issues at play need to be better understood. It is assumed that both parties have this basic understanding and it should not be necessary to have to reference everything. The onus in a debate to obtain information is on the one who has no idea what the other has just talked about. If I had to reference everything, I would end up with a 1000 word post - that is useless. If you are completely unaware of something, research it. That is simply an act of intellectual laziness on your part. Everything I state on blogs is easily found through simple research - other wise I don’t state something I don’t know of, that’s a conservative thing to do.