- Harper, Explain Thyself

Posted: 6/12/2010 10:47:20 AM The Globe and Mail
Friday, June 11, 2010, Shock and awe over Liberal Party prez’s coalition comments and memories of the Chevrolet summit, Jane Taber
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/shock-and-awe-over-liberal-party-prezs-coalition-comments-and-memories-of-the-chevrolet-summit/article1600427/

Just exactly what's wrong with the approx 2/3rd of Canadian 'losers', as Harper refers to us, that voted against Harper getting together and giving Harper and his Con's the boot.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

In fact, it is an urgent necessity if we wish to salvage our Canadian a way of life built up by the blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.

Stephen Harper's statement during his visit with the new English Prime Minister:

"'Losers don't get to form coalitions' he declared in the garden at 10 Downing St. 'Winners are the ones who form government, and obviously David was able to form an innovative arrangement.'

He added: 'In the end, the coalition in Britain - I think it's important to point out - was formed by the party that won the election.'"

is clearly simply self-serving demagoguery designed for the 33% die-hard Con supporters when epi-centre is Alberta.

Just exactly what's wrong with the approx 2/3rd of Canadian 'losers' that voted against Harper getting together and giving Harper and his Con's the boot. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Stephen Harper is, once again, applying the Harperavellian Fundamental Principle: "it doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound plausible", to formulate this corollary: 'Losers don't get to form coalitions'.

If I recall, the Liberal-Democrats' first attempt at a coalition was with the Labour Party. That's right the other 'loser'.

Clearly they were under the impression that had they come to an agreement they would have assuming the government and from what I saw everyone else in Britain seemed to be operating under the same understanding.

I don't recall anyone in England suggesting that it would be unconstitutional for the two losers to form a coalition and assume the government.

I also don't recall Harper making any comments along the lines that that would have been an illegal government or that Canada would not have recognized it if they had assumed power. Perhaps Harper could explain this non-sequitur.

That's a good question for Harper do his comments mean that had the Liberal-Democrats and the Labour Parties formed a coalition, would Harper refuse to recognize this illegal government of losers.

Another application of the Harperavellian Fundamental Principle is Harper's dis-enfranchising over 1.4 million voters in Quebec by say that they would not be allowed even to simply proclaim their support for a government.

This is, if I recall, after he himself was willing to accept the Block support to form a government in '04 to form a coalition of losers and supplant the winner of the '04 election.

When he says 'Losers don't get to form coalitions', if Harper is not referring to the constitutionality and legality of it, then exactly what is he referring to.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html