Gilles Duceppe said:
</i>”I do remember my meeting with Mr. Harper in 2004. He definitely talked about a coalition,"</i>
Harpers explanation sounds a little different:
<i>"Had the governor general asked me, my position would have been . . . very simply that there is not an issue of confidence here, we are not trying to bring the government down, these are small matters and we think we can work a compromise. And, by the way, that's exactly what we did."</i>
Of course we aren't supposed to take Harper’s word over the word of a separatist who's not so hidden agenda is to extract as much out of Canada as he can, before breaking up the country. It would be beyond irony if this same Separatist held a cabinet position in any coalition government.
The Conservatives were vilified for years by the Liberals and their friends in the media because of some elusive “hidden agenda” that never materialized, and only existed in the minds of those fearful of losing power and perks. When faced with the LiBloNDs not outright denying, but trying to deflect criticism away from this coalition of losers, we’re now only hearing crickets.
By the way, the coalition agreement is still in effect until June 2011. No wonder the Liberals were in a hurry to get their non-confidence motion passed. Anyone want to give odds on whether that document gets the dust blown off of it in the event of another minority?
Avoiding the coalition question might have allowed Mr. Ignatieff not to tell an outright lie, but his dancing around giving an answer makes it look very much like he intends to try to seize power this way. Besides, I’m not sure why he didn’t just deny outright any coalition plans, it wouldn’t have been the first time the Liberals campaigned saying one thing while intending to do exactly the opposite after the election (Trudeau’s wage and price controls, Chretien’s repealing the GST).
</i>”I do remember my meeting with Mr. Harper in 2004. He definitely talked about a coalition,"</i>
Harpers explanation sounds a little different:
<i>"Had the governor general asked me, my position would have been . . . very simply that there is not an issue of confidence here, we are not trying to bring the government down, these are small matters and we think we can work a compromise. And, by the way, that's exactly what we did."</i>
Of course we aren't supposed to take Harper’s word over the word of a separatist who's not so hidden agenda is to extract as much out of Canada as he can, before breaking up the country. It would be beyond irony if this same Separatist held a cabinet position in any coalition government.
The Conservatives were vilified for years by the Liberals and their friends in the media because of some elusive “hidden agenda” that never materialized, and only existed in the minds of those fearful of losing power and perks. When faced with the LiBloNDs not outright denying, but trying to deflect criticism away from this coalition of losers, we’re now only hearing crickets.
By the way, the coalition agreement is still in effect until June 2011. No wonder the Liberals were in a hurry to get their non-confidence motion passed. Anyone want to give odds on whether that document gets the dust blown off of it in the event of another minority?
Avoiding the coalition question might have allowed Mr. Ignatieff not to tell an outright lie, but his dancing around giving an answer makes it look very much like he intends to try to seize power this way. Besides, I’m not sure why he didn’t just deny outright any coalition plans, it wouldn’t have been the first time the Liberals campaigned saying one thing while intending to do exactly the opposite after the election (Trudeau’s wage and price controls, Chretien’s repealing the GST).
Comment