Submitted: 5:14pm, PDT, 19 Apr.'11 CBC
see below:
If I were Ignatieff I would simply answer that if Harper gets more seats than the other parties but still a minority I would simply take the Harper letter of '04 to the GG and attach it to my letterhead saying "GG, Please consider the attached"
How could Harper possible attack that.
Oh sorry, I forgot
That was then, this is now.
The only difference, of course:
'Then' was how Harper might attain power.
'Now' is how Harper might lose power.
Right after the election in Britain when the Liberal-Democratic Party and the Labour Party were discussing a co-alition
Harper would not have dared to make such utterances as he is now about 'loser can't form governments' for good reason, he would have been put in his place, and quite properly.
Harper has broken the sacred trust of the office of PM and instead of acting for the benefit of all Canadians and the best interests of Canada, as a nation, has, at all times, acted in an extreme partisan fashion for the benefit of a few, with Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed.
Harper would continue to do so, if allowed, dragging, Canada to the extreme right, tearing asunder what it took our forefather generations to build, through their blood, sweat and tears.
Harper has a total disregard for the Moderate Majority of Canadians and Contempt for their duly elected representatives.
Where is the legitimacy in that.
Harper is in this position not because the people of Canada want it. But because:
Harper has a core of die-hard, right-wing extremist supporters (approx.33%), that will vote for Harper pretty much no matter what - even if he were announce Carson as Justice Minister - someone make Harper promise he won't do that
If not but for the Will of Parliament then Where is the legitimacy in that.
It may be a political reality, but then so are dictatorships, but few claim them legitimate (except those in power, of course).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html