Friday, February 10, 2006

Conservatives continue to display why the Liberals won all those elections

To quote Sir Wilfred Laurier, "Reforms are for the opposition, it is the business of government to stay in power." We work for a decade rebuilding our party, making compromises, etc, finally the weight of the Liberals corruption is too much and they collapse and we finally manage to form government, weak minority that it may be, and what do we do? We all line up to lynch yet another Conservative leader, not even waiting past his first Cabinet. No wonder the Liberals all assume that they'll be back in power next election, sure they are lining up to refuse the leadership now, but if we keep this up it won't matter, we'll be back to the bitter, disaffected party that we turned into in the 80s and will be right back to where we started: watching the Liberals continued march over a cliff in the name of 'progress' with there being nothing left for us to be able to do, other than seperation.

Be disgusted, be angry, rail about principles if you want, but stop and think for the love of God, is this really that big of a deal that you are willing to destroy the party over?

Edit: Forgot to add the link that inspired my ire.

Update: Captain Ed comments.

Americans probably won't relate to the outrage that Turner and others feel. We don't require people to change parties when they get Cabinet-level appointments. Bill Bennett was still a Democrat when Reagan picked him to be Secretary of Education, according to Bennett on his show. Bill Clinton picked a Republican to be Secretary of Defense for the last term of office (William Cohen). Usually such appointments are made to offer an olive branch to the opposition and to garner bipartisan support for key portions of the agenda.

The thing is, Canada doesn't require opposition members to change parties when they get Cabinet appointments either. I'm not sure why Emerson and Harper chose to go this root, though I'm sure there would have outrage if he'd stayed a Liberal as well.