Garth Turner the Coward – It’s Harper’s Fault I’m Not Resigning
February 7, 2007 · By Greg Farries
What surprised me most about the reaction to my joining Stephane Dion?
That, somehow, people think I won’t run in a by-election, that I’m afraid. Not the case. In announcing my move I challenged PMSH to call by-elections in Halton at the same time as in Vancouver-Kingsway (Emerson), in Mississauga-Streetsville (Wajid Khan) and in Quebec (Michael Fortier), because that’s the principled thing to do. We all need to be accountable to the people.
But I guess those three aren’t up to the challenge, again.
So I’m going it alone.
Garth’s hypocrisy knows no boundaries! The only reason this weblog and many others like it are railing against Garth’s decision not to resign and run in a by-election is because of Garth’s many diatribes against Khan and Emerson, for doing the same thing. I pointed out yesterday that Garth said himself,
If they decide to change parties, they should go and get re-elected.
I’m not sure if Garth could be any more clear about his position? Funny though, there is no mention of how it’s Stephen Harper’s responsibly to call a bi-election…
However, I’ve done some more digging, and I’ve come up with another interesting quote from Garth’s blog:
“Everybody who makes up the government should be elected. They should be elected as members of the party that forms the government. Anybody who switches parties should go back to the people. To do otherwise is to place politicians above the people when, actually, it’s the other way around.”*
But it’s different when it’s Garth. Everyone should know this by now. He’s taken the principled stand of not forcing his constituents to be unrepresented for up to six months.
Haven’t you heard the old maxim:
“In a democracy it matters not what the voters chose, ’tis better to be represented by any old party, than to be unrepresented.”
It’s Garth’s new guiding axiom.
Isn’t there a difference with Garth Turner in that he was kicked out of his party? He wanted to remain a Conservative and wasn’t allowed to by Harper and the troglodytes who run the PMO. That’s very different that Emerson or Stronach or Kahn.
First, Kahn faced turfing, only the choice was his in the end. Second, if Turner wanted to remain a Conservative, he’d have been respectful of his colleagues’ caucus privacy. He had the option to stop behaving like an ass and chose not to. And finally, Garth’s move comes with the knowledge that unlike Stronach, without a party’s backing, he would be unable to fund an election bid. He’s being expedient and mercenary and acting as though he’s taking some sort of high road — that’s why people are angry.
Yesterday Garth offered to resign if the PM calls a byelection immediatly regardless of the other byelections.
Yesterday Garth offered to resign if the PM calls a byelection immediatly regardless of the other byelections.
I note that PMSH refused to stand in the house and answer, leaving instead to one of his minions.
In other words, the CPC government had a perfect opportunity to call Turner’s bluff, and not only missed it, but showed that they were bluffing themselves.
Calling who’s bluff, Turner’s?
Have you read anything we’ve posted here? This is Turner’s problem, not Harper’s. Turner is the hypocrite who openly stated (repeatedly) that resigning and running in a bi-election is required for anyone crossing the floor.
This has nothing to do with Harper, get over it. Turners attempt to pass the buck (and you’re defense of it) is pathetic…
http://repocreepo.blogspot.com.....tical.html
Here we go again. Garth has AGAIN contradicted previous statements. He had the gall to call Gary Carr Liberal MP a hypcritical flip flopper for being a former conservative MPP and now a liberal MP..
Shoes on the other foot. If I can get this info from research and other fellow blogging tories… why cant the MSM.??
Garth has been sent an email…hes not responded yet. Maybe his ass is still sore from being on Michael Coren show tonight.