Quick Hits - June 10

James. As someone who is reputedly more intelligent than a sack of hammers (or Stageleft, whatever you’d like to call it - what were you thinking depending on him for blogging material?), I’m wondering how you plan on reconciling what I wrote in the post and how you evaluate me after reading it:

Rempel: “I am perfectly fine with Dion having kicked Joe Whatever out of his caucus for voting against the party. It’s what leaders do. It’s how Parliament works.”

Bow on Rempel: “…a Conservative supporter all too willing to place party loyalty ahead of integrity.”

Just curious. And I look forward to seeing what kind of integrity you bring to the task of explaining how defending one’s partisan opponent amounts to placing party loyalty ahead of integrity.

Peter, as I said over here (bottom section of the post) that this story wouldn’t have been a story without Peter MacKay’s clear and unequivocal statement that his party wasn’t going to whip the budget vote, as the Liberals had done with Joe Comuzzi. The apparent hypocrisy is not that the Conservatives did something the Liberals had done, but that MacKay had made such a clear statement that they would not.

MacKay was never rebuked at that time. Nobody stepped forward to say that he was wrong, or making policy without talking to the rest of the cabinet. But nobody makes such a clear and unequivocal statement unless they believe it to be true. So why did MacKay believe it to be true? Did somebody change their mind? Or was MacKay hung out to dry? That’s the story, here. And that’s what Mark Peters talks about, to his immense credit. And I think we could use more of that type of integrity.

So…what? I should have condemned MacKay? I did, in the post from which you concluded I had no integrity. I should have congratulated Casey? Sorry. Parliamentary politics doesn’t work that way. You and Garth and Stageleft may not like it, but it’s the truth. Just ask Preston Manning. It wasn’t long before he was whipping his caucus as hard as Don Boudria was whipping his.

Please. You are my oracle. Tell me what I could do in order to earn this thing you call integrity.

I find it a little hard to believe that MacKay was being that stupid or presumptuous, though I suppose that anything is possible. Personally, I think we would have caught wind of this earlier if MacKay had been speaking out of turn. Which suggests that somebody in the caucus is being deceitful, or changed their mind in a fit of anger after Casey made his stand. Rather than just condemn MacKay and Casey, it would be good to ask who was it in the party that gave the signal that voting against the budget was okay? And why did they change their mind? Again, I think Mark Peters’ take on these questions is very good.

I see Peter still can’t decide whether he wants to grow up to be Oscar Wilde or Stewie Griffith.

(Sorry, James. I’ll behave now.)

On another of your quick hits:

Actually no change of diet is required to have green blood…just a change of location.

I accidentally cut the fold of skin between thumb and forefinger while assembling my scuba gear some years ago. It was bleeding dramatically but not dangerously, and we decided to go ahead with the dive. I noted to my astonishment that at about 60 feet of depth, my blood was a very attractive copper-green colour, because (I assume) of colour frequencies absorbed at that depth.

Disraeli would have advised Casey to damn his principles and stick to his party.

The problem is that Casey’s principles may not necessarily be good ones. This business of playing provinces against each other with side deals was one of the worst parts of the Martin regime. The board should have been swept clean and a country-wide accord negotiated.

As for protecting carbon based resource revenue? Damn it, those resources aren’t renewable! It’s not like the money is going into trust for when the oil runs out. We should be disincentivising provinces with respect to drilling for oil or coal and incentivising solar, wind and tidal.

Equalisation must be transformed to infrastructure funding, before the oil runs out/falls to below economic recovery prices and the Atlantic and Prairie provinces are left with the environmental consequences of oil extraction and no money to deal with them.

Okay, I’m officially lost. I suppose that it doesn’t matter that this was a budget vote. In Parliament. If MacKay’s Question Period ranting carried so much weight, why didn’t Keddy also vote against the budget? Why didn’t every Newfoundland and Saskatchewan MP? Why wasn’t every single MP threatening to withhold their budget vote unless the government made some concession to their ridings?

(This last scenario, incidentally, is the one tacitly and constantly endorsed by Stageleft with all his silly anti-party blather.)

So to sum up your answer to my question: to have had integrity in this episode, I should have approached this matter using a particular thought process that you think is fabulous. Am I getting this right? That’s how I oftentimes define integrity to others as well: Think like me.

That is the unconscious reaction, isn’t it? Integrity, or the lack thereof, can be in the eye of the beholder.

Yes Peter, you are lost, officially even. You may be fine with a cabinet member standing up and saying one thing while the party does something completely different — you’re entitled to be fine with any sort of party hypocracy you want to be fine with, really, you can.

Others of us see it has something quite differnet. IMO it’s a really simple question, either MPs owe first loyality to their constituents, or they owe first loyality to the party - which is it?

PS: Ever gonna open comments over at your shop?

“That is the unconscious reaction, isn’t it? Integrity, or the lack thereof, can be in the eye of the beholder.”

Fair enough. But once it goes from unconscious reaction to writing in a public place, one would think that you would have some sort of defense for your views beyond “in the eye of the beholder” at hand.

We’re not discussing the colour of drapes here, after all. If I go to my blog and write, “James Bow has no integrity,” I’d expect nothing less than for you to show up and ask what the hell I’m talking about. And if I replied, “Oh, that was just an unconscious reaction,” I’d expect for you to exhibit just the tiniest bit of annoyance.

SL: I have. How exciting.

Well Peter, if today’s news is any indication, you may see Keddy doing exactly that, and voting against the Budget as well.

I see where you are coming from, Peter, and criticizing MacKay for speaking out of turn is consistent, even if its after the fact (with the understanding that we don’t pour over Hansard as it comes out, so how can we jump on everything somebody says as they say it). So, point to you on this one. The use of the word integrity seems too strong, now, and I apologize.

I do think that the criticism of Casey and MacKay seems one-sided, for the reasons Mark Peter explores. It’s a mess all-round. Either MacKay got off his leash (should he be kept on a metaphorical leash?) or somebody above him sent out mixed signals and is now clamping down. The Conservative caucus seems unable to figure out how to handle the competing demands of the regions of this country, but I don’t think getting angry at Atlantic Canada is going to help, or be particularly healthy for the Conservative Party. However your mileage may vary, and taking sides is your right.

Thanks James. I don’t comment here often, but I do enjoy dropping by and reading whenever you post.