Fuddle was 1st Liblogger to Propose Red Green Pact! Now Fuddle Contradicts Himself. Fuddle, As Always, Full of Duddle!

Even by Fuddle's standards, this time he's especially full of Duddle.
Right after May became leader he proposed that Liberals vote for her
so she could get into the House. Quote (and note Fuddle's typically
snide dismissal of of sitting Liberal MP Roger Cuzner): "Demiurge a
dit...
Whatever, I'm sure Antonio wants to see May in so badly that he is
sticking to his guns and is calling for progressive Liberals to vote
for her in Cape Breton. Antonio a dit...I do. Any woman who says the
Liberal Budget in 2005 was the Greenest in Canadian history is someone
I can work with. I'm sure we can keep Roger Cuzner somewhat occupied.
Besides, la rumor mill tells me its Dingwall's old seat. Yay LIBERAL
NOSTALGIA!"
From: http://fuddle-duddle.blogspot.com/2006/08/may-day-may-day.html

Gee, I wonder why, when Fuddle proposes a red-green coalition, it's
right, but when Dion does it, it's wrong. Why Fuddle uses Con attack
lines to attack his own leader? Could it be that Fuddle is:
a) Not Very Smart?
b) A Dick?
c) Against "Tous ensemble"?
d) A Bad Loser & A Bad Liberal?
e) All of the Above?

Answer: e.

The complete text of Fuddle's post is below. I'm sure M. Dion wouldn't
mind giving him credit for the idea.

27 août 2006
MAY DAY MAY DAY
The Green Party has elected a charismatic leader with more credibility
on the environment than the Liberals and the NDP put together.

We have to get Elizabeth May elected into the House of Commons. The
Green Party has always got the short end of the Canadian political
stick because it is not recognized by the Mainstream Media as a
credible alternative to the four other parties.

In terms of getting results for the environment, the Green Party could
do much more than the NDP, hell, they are the experts. I don't really
like one issue parties all that much, but given the Liberal track
record on the environment, I think our party could use a swift kick in
the ass on the environment.

Elizabeth May will get results for everyone if we just give her a
chance. Her tireless work in the pro-environment lobby has given her
the expertise. There is only one riding smart enough to accomplish the
job, smart enough to understand how important it is for the Canadian
political discourse to elect Canada's first Green Party member.

Ottawa Centre, currently held by the NDP, is a riding filled with two
extremes, hill staffers, and people who cant stand hill staffers.
Their spirit helped elect Ed Broadbent when others thought it was
impossible to defeat Richard Mahoney (cough!) Nobody will cry over the
loss of Paul Dewar, and the green voters, about 5% of the voting
population will finally get their voice into Parliament. I have to ask
all NDP voters in the riding to park their vote with the Greens in
that riding, just this once.

par / by Antonio à / at 15:44
3 Commentaires:

Christopher Young a dit...

Hum, Antonio, she just announced she would run in Cape-Breton.

And before running in Ottawa Centre, I think a Vancouver seat
would be easier for her to win.

And, anyway, Canada's Green Party isn't that green : Both Sierra
Club and Greenpeace gave us better environnmental scores than the
greens.

Still, it can only get better with May instead of Harris.
8/28/2006 8:48 AM

Demiurge a dit...

Whatever, I'm sure Antonio wants to see May in so badly that he is
sticking to his guns and is calling for progressive Liberals to vote
for her in Cape Breton.
8/29/2006 1:45 AM

Antonio a dit...

I do

Any woman who says the Liberal Budget in 2005 was the Greenest in
Canadian history is someone I can work with.

I'm sure we can keep Roger Cuzner somewhat occupied.

Besides, la rumor mill tells me its Dingwall's old seat. Yay
LIBERAL NOSTALGIA!

8/30/2006 3:17 AM

Paillé Doubly Wrong: Partisan & Separatist

It is one thing to be fair-minded, it is another to be willfully blind
to the difference between a political actor who believes in a united
Canada and one who wishes for its dissolution asap. The first, if of
good faith, would engage in such an investigation with the sole intent
of exposing failings within the Government of Canada so as to punish
the culpable and improve its future performance. The second, if
genuinely convinced of Quebec's existential need to separate, has as
his objective the deligitimisation of the Government of Canada itself.

No-one should lead any sort of investigation involving a political
party or parties if that person is well-known for his bias against the
party(ies). And consequently only those with no known or expected
political bias should be involved in such an investigation like
officers of parliament, like, say, the ethics commissioner or AUDITOR
GENERAL!!! If only she'd done an investigation into this matter
already...

I say expected bias because I don't think those with past partisan
ties should be disqualified from leading inquiries or other such
unbiased work of public interest, as long as there is no general
expectation they will be affected by previous affiliations. For
example, Daniel Johnson is an ex-PQ premier and Bob Rae an ex-NDP
premier, but when they did/do such work, given the time that has
passed since they were partisans and their subsequent distancing from
partisan positions, few people believe(d) their political history
would come into play.

Paillé has been a vociferous partisan until recently, so already on
those grounds he is a silly choice were this a serious investigation.
But he is a doubly doubtful choice as a fierce separatist.

I worked on the 1995 referendum. I worked every single day of the
campaign and before, and there was not a single day of the campaign,
not a single street, not a single address, where, if there the voters
did not have French last names, they had not been "forgotten" from the
electoral roll, and when they had gone to register themselves after
this "oversight", found they still weren't on the second electoral
roll, etc.etc.. Think about that. Every single time. And then, on the
night itself, the YES reps, at every single poll, questioned every NO
vote. I mean every vote. And far too many scrutineers seemed of like
mind. Strange how there was a direct correlation between NO support
and rejected ballots across the province, eh? But hiring a bus to go
to a rally is much more dangerous and needs to be much more
investigation than any such suppression of NO votes, doncha know (the
completely unbiased (HA!) DGE says so)?

I did lots of stuff, on the ground and in the organisation. It was not
my first campaign. I was no naif (I thought). A third of my longtime
friends voted Yes. But I had never, ever, seen anything like the shit
that went down. And it was completely organised and coordinated. I
called, talked to others in the campaign across the province and
everywhere there were the same eerily similar stories, and the same
sickening feeling. I mean, we know these guys. We go to school with
them. They can't be serious. But they were. Dead serious.

Paillé was Industry Minister. He was a major player in the
coordination of the Government's activities. He tried to intimidate
business into silence and acquiescence. He played as dirty as it's
possible to play.

He's a separatist. It's a legitimate option. But no Paillé-type
separatist is going to miss a chance to delegitimise the Federal
Government: would you if you felt the very future of your nation
depended on separating asap? The Federal Government polls. A lot of
the questions they ask and the answers they get are crucial to
understanding federalist strategies, tactics, policies, politics,
etc.etc.etc.. Do you really think we should let separatists, even were
they "non-partisan" as can be, going through all the Fed's polling
info? I mean, I'm sure no self-respecting separatist is going to value
his existential belief over his vow of confidentiality to the, ah,
Gouvernement de maudit Canada...? Not like he's going to mention this
info over drinks to politically connected friends, is he? And not like
his report is going to reflect his deep-seated antipathy to the
Government of Canada itself, not to mention the historic party of
federalism in Quebec, the PLC?

It's not the same as if they'd appointed Floyd Laughren (NDP finance
minister under Rae), is it? Consider this, would Quebeckers think it
was legitimate for the PLQ to appoint John Manley to investigate
Quebec Government polling from 1994-2003? Or would there be complete
uproar in all the media?

Whether one is federalist or separatist does matter, not just whether
one is a partisan.

As for Jean Lapierre, Chrétien put it well when he said he didn't know
the leader could banish members for life or else that's what he
would've done to Lapierre. He should NEVER have been allowed to run,
become a cabinet minister, etc. etc.. Just because some were fools
means we all have to be, or go along with that logic.