Friday, December 19, 2008

Will The Real "Mr. Dithers" Stand Up? - Steve, That's You!

Oh how then opposition leader Stephen Harper used to like to mock and ridicule Paul Martin, smearing him as "Mister Dithers."

Harper delighted in mocking Martin, the guy who brought Canada back from the brink of bankruptcy, who cleaned up the mess left by that other Conservative, Brian Mulroney.

So, Harper ridiculed and demeaned Martin and it got him straight into 24 Sussex Drive. The economy was good, the books were balanced, debt was being paid down and the feds were running a $12-billion surplus. Talk about walking into a prime ministerial piece of cake.

Harper really didn't have to do much and, not surprisingly, he didn't. Instead he busied himself with constant campaigning for majority power. That's all he's done since he took over - constant political gamesmanship.

Now, however, we're in meltdown. This should be Steve's shining moment, his chance to show us real vision and leadership. What do we get? Go to CalgaryGrit's blog or Garth Turner's. Both have charts of the litany of moronic claims we've heard from Harper since September, one idiotic statement after another as the stock market has steadily tanked. Erratic, inconsistent - genuine dithering somehow elevated to near religious-quality.


So, what's Steve's plan to rescue the Canadian economy? What's he got to show for the past four months at the wheel? How about the square root of Sweet Fanny Adam? Oh, he's going to spend an underwhelming $6-billion on infrastructure. Hell that's not half the surplus the government was banking when he got his hands on it and started defunding it, steadily weakening the government for this very day. Less than a third of the treasure we've thrown away on Afghanistan. Not even a tenth of the bank bailout. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetically sad.

And this jackass mocked Paul Martin.


Anonymous said...

One of the best posts I've ever read.

Short, succinct, so on the mark it hurts, and the righteous anger everyone should be feeling.

Thanks for making my morning.

Harper would look good in a clown suit - especially when he goes with that hyper smile look he wears on occasion. I'm hoping he uses it for his grand return from sanctioned isolation.

The Mound of Sound said...

It's easy to be angered at this sphincter. Read the excerpts from his Conservative Television Network year-ender published in the G&M. He covers up his incompetence by perpetuating the bald faced lie that the coalition gave the Bloc a veto over the government. It's a lie. He knows it. CTV knows it. None of it matters. Harpo has the reptilian integrity of Cheney and CTV is bending over backwards to mimic Fox News. One's as disgusting as the other.

Fish said...

Well said Mound.

We obviously can't blame him for the fact that we are in the grip of a recession, but this recession has been forecast for years, and Harper has had more than enough time to prepare this country for thiose tough times. Instead, he's been shoveling out the goodies in campaign budgets and squandering the surpluses martin left him with!

Brad Dillman said...

Mound: those who suggest the BQ would hold a veto must be making the assumption that the Conservatives would never oppose the BQ and support the coalition.

I believe this is true because I distrust Harper, and expect they'd vote with their ideology and partisan ways to force an election.

But it would be interesting spin if the Conservatives voted with the BQ to topple the coalition and force an election, wouldn't it?

The opposite would also be interesting spin: if Conservatives supported the coalition to avoid an election triggered by the BQ. But I expect this would never happen because I think the Conservatives want an election to try again for a majority.


"Stevie, it's OK, it happens to lots of guys... twice."

"Not to me, I can always get up a majority. You'll see."

"As long as it's soon, my arm is tired."

The Mound of Sound said...

RN, the deal, as I understand it, is that the BQ wouldn't vote against a coalition government on any confidence motion for 2-1/2 years. That would safeguard at least two, possibly three budgets. Given the Tories' record for driving Canada into a ditch and the Libs record for pulling it back out, intact, that would be in Quebec's and the Bloc's interest.

Brad Dillman said...

Mound: I think you're right, but I heard 18 months. But that was only confidence motions, which I forgot myself in my earlier comment.

Still, the BQ could only 'veto' votes which were not confidence motions ONLY iff you assume the Conservatives will CONSISTENTLY vote against a Lib/NDP coalition.

Given that these wouldn't trigger an election (I was incorrect earlier) I wonder which way the Conservatives would tend?

Vote with the evil coalition or the evil separatists? What a choice. Their supports would likely complain either way I expect. But it's all just idle speculation without knowing the subject matter of such a vote.