Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Rachel Marsden :: Townhall.com Columnist
No Bailout Causes Coup In Canada
by Rachel Marsden
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


I’m not joking. This isn’t hyperbole. Liberals in Canada are staging an actual political coup to unseat the government, using as an excuse the fact that governing Conservatives are denying the country a bailout.

The public treasury is to liberals what heroin is to junkies. Never underestimate the lengths to which they will go to get their fix - even if it means staging a political coup to overthrow a democratically elected First World government, which also happens to be America’s largest trading partner.

Only a month ago, Canada re-elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party to a near-majority with 143 seats in a 308 seat parliament.

The next highest number of votes (77 seats) went to the Liberal Party – which has been parked at the trough for so long that it has been branded “Canada’s Natural Governing Party”.

Harper’s electoral message was clear: Proven leadership for troubled economic times. The Liberals offered up a candidate who primarily pandered to the all-important Canadian constituencies of polar bears and artists. He was so lame that even the media couldn’t bring itself to endorse him, which is the canary in the coal mine for a Liberal.

In the last week of the campaign, when parties are typically expected to max out the charge card on handouts to bribe voters with their own money, Harper said that little would be forthcoming. He still won.

But why would liberals let a little thing like an electoral rout get in the way of victory? A month after the election, the Liberals and NDP socialists have decided that it’s time to shove the designated driver out the door and take the wheel.

What set these sensitive souls off this time? Well, Harper said last week that there will be no outright bailout beyond his ongoing tax cutting efforts, and he decided that political parties should forego the funding they’re getting from taxpayers until such time as the economy improves.

Liberals called this latter move “mean spirited”. The audacity of denying Liberal hands the comforting, familiar warmth and shelter of the cash register drawer during the dead of winter!

The Liberals had a crackerjack fundraising scheme for several years, until it was revealed that they were laundering taxpayer funds into the pockets of their party-friendly donors and pals. Now, like a juice-monkey cut off from his steroid supply, they have no game.

Liberals are hoping that a parliamentary vote on December 8th will install them in power, propped up by the socialists and Quebec separatists. And power is the only thing all these factions have in common – besides a pathological addiction to other people’s money.

Normally, even when a government falls on a vote of confidence, an election is called immediately – because without a mandate from the people, it smacks too much of an unelected dictatorship.

This coup essentially ranks the Canadian Liberals above Venezuelan despot, Hugo Chavez, on the corruption scale. Chavez may have recently failed in his referendum to eliminate presidential term limits, but he at least realizes that he has to send it back to the voters.

The Canadian Liberals aren’t even going to do that. They have said that they won’t waste any more money on an election after they take power – despite taking power precisely so they can get to “work” wasting more money. Under the backroom coup deal, they will have free reign to defile the country as they see fit for a minimum of 18 months without having to worry about a pesky election. The liberal mainstream Canadian media (pardon the surfeit of redundancy in this phrase), which hates Harper because they’re so overtly biased that he often just ignores them, has assumed the usual position:

The Globe and Mail, Canada’s national newspaper, headlines: “’Four Wise Men’ Would Show Coalition The Way”. Naturally, they’re referring to four prominent benchers – three Liberal and one socialist - whose best years of their lives were spent waterboarding themselves with public coinage. I have a better name for these guys: party hacks. Which is why I’ll never find my byline in the Globe and Mail.

Compare that to the same newspaper’s language in 2005, when the opposition Conservatives were considering a non-confidence vote on a Liberals over the fiscal scandal which was such a blatant cash grab even for Liberals that it eventually wiped out their government:

“Tories, Bloc overpower Liberals - Opposition MPs managed to force a motion through the House of Commons Tuesday demanding the fragile Liberal minority government step down.”

Poor “fragile” Liberals, always being bullied by those mean, “overpowering”, “forceful” Conservatives.

At the time, Harper not only abided by Liberal pleas to hold off on any non-confidence vote for another half-year, but he made it clear that the public would determine government via vote: "The Liberal culture of entitlement goes on. The public must be given a chance to put it to an end.”

Ah, the good old days. Now, if the Liberals have their way, voters won’t have any say about this unelected government. At least not for another 18 months. The Liberals are talking now about a $30-billion bailout. Canada already has a perpetual bailout and inherent safety net in the form of ample social programs. Anything more is redundant.

Harper’s best option? Adjourn parliament until after Christmas to preempt a non-confidence vote and give these power addicts some time to detox. If they still don’t relent, call an election so the voting public can wipe them off the face of Canada’s political map.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Rachel Marsden is a columnist with Human Events Magazine, and Editor-In-Chief of GrandCentralPolitical News Syndicate.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Rachel Marsden's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
weird
So a collection of members of parliament representing the majority are reaching an agreement to replace the minority government in power, and Marsden thinks this is equivalent to an anti democratic coup? What an odd idea of how parliamentary democracy should work.

The grassroots are engaged
and We are Not Amused.

An online petition was emailed to me by my least political cousin. I signed in at around 202,000 half an hour ago. It's over 205,000 now.

Please, Canadians only at http://www.petitiononline.com/CANADIAN/petition.html

Illigitimae non corrundum.

response to Lon
Canada previously had a minority government. Depending upon which side you listen to, a new election was called either because the Liberal Party weren't allowing votes on issues, or because the Conservatives are evil boogie-men.

The results of the last election were a slightly larger Conservative minority government. The sidelines are the interesting thing: the NDP (hard left) party were asked if they would work with the Liberal party (soft left) to make a coalition party that could win. They said they wouldn't, that they were in it to win. The Liberal party were asked if they would form a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois (soft-left Quebec separatism party)to make a coalition party that could win. They said that they wouldn't.

The NDP party had a caucus meeting conference telephone call that they inexplicably invited a sitting Conservative member of parliament to (possibly because he shares a last name with a female NDP member of parliament) in which it was stated (and subsequently released to the media) that the NDP had been part of or planning an alliance of everyone-but-the-Conservatives all along.

If this is the case, then it effectively negates the last federal election because the campaigning parties lied about their intentions. Very few western farmers and union workers would want to be part of a group beholden to the separatists.

Canadian Conservative Leader

Can we trade him for Obama?

Ted
You can have Harper if you want.

Incidentally, the Conservatives have tried to team up with the Bloc twice in recent years (2000 and 2004), and pretty much everyone knows that Harper's full of it there, even the ones who don't like the Coalition idea. Nobody takes the separatists seriously anymore except politicians. They're just a left-wing party from Quebec with a really good negotiating tactic.

Anyways, putting aside Lon's point about there being more Coalition MPs than Conservatives, I think it's weird to have a leader lecturing us about upholding the tenets of democracy when his actions this last week have been a) trying to pass a bill that would bankrupt and cripple his two biggest opposition parties, b) putting out a bunch of radio ads calling his opposition traitors to the country, and c) attempting to shut down Parliament.

Oh sure, that's out of context, but who needs context when we can do things the American way and subjectively interpret reality to conform to the argument we came up with beforehand?

Those who would be king...
...were discovered by the voters to be anything but their choice for leadership. It is nice that they have shown their Stalinist character by demonstrating that they desire power so severely that they would mount a back-door coup against the government chosen by the electorate.
If we had more progressive media in Canada, as they do in the US, these losers could have bought the election in the way that the US candidates appear to have done. However, fortunately, the short election period in Canada does not easily allow for such underhanded tactics - so the opposition has had to revert to their Stalinist preferences.
We the voters thank them for showing us what they are and what they truly represent. I'll bet the US voters for BO wish they had that same opportunity, rather than find out that "change" only means a different party in the oval office.

Oh Canada!
A groundswell of indignation, eh? With Britian, Germany and France having gone to conservative leaders, we must wonder what the heck the US thinks it's doing. After years of Eurpoean political leadership comparable to "The View" I guess the people woke up. I give the US two years before a new "contract" with America will sweep out the Democratic dead wood.
I am glad that the Alaska senator is out. Let all the bums be exposed and ousted. Better yet, term limits for all. If it's OK for Potus, let the House and Senate ante up.

response to Michael
There is a difference between being willing to work with someone and stating a price of six senatorial appointments and $1 billion in "stimulus" to the home province of the one-province party.

The "bankrupt and cripple" the other parties shot is funny, under current Canadian law each party gets $1.95 in federal funding for the party coffers for each vote they get in the federal election. That's a form of welfare that I oppose. The $/vote meant that the Conservatives would "lose" the most money because they had the most votes (although they also have the best external fund-raising apparatus because their supporters are the most self-reliant and willing to put their money where their mouths are) This cut is also roughly $30 million per year, and that savings to the Canadian taxpayer is a good reason to do this in hard economic times. Oh, and in case you missed it, when it became obvious that the New Liberal Block members would take down the government rather than lose their subsidy, the cut was removed from the confidence vote. In other words, IT WAS REMOVED BEFORE THE COUP BEGAN TO TAKE ACTION. Unless the New Liberal Block never intended to follow the results of the last election.

C_Miner
Yes the old, "if a party goes back on a campaign promise it negates the whole election" theory. Can you think of any other case in which you took that theory seriously? Are there any elections that would stand if people did?

That's funny.

Canada has had minority governments because the other parties generally do not get along well enough to form a coalition government. But part of being in a parliamentary system is knowing that if the plurality party manages to convince the other parties to form a coalition, then that coalition gets to run the country. If Canada does not want to be a parliamentary system then it should adopt a different form of government.

A coalition government is generally not the most stable, so early elections would not be shocking if the coalition is actually formed.

But pretending that this is somehow beyond the pale is pretty silly.

Marsden wrote
"This coup essentially ranks the Canadian Liberals above Venezuelan despot, Hugo Chavez, on the corruption scale."

A little droll, as the Grits have been highly corrupt since at least the f@g-end days of Pearson.

For C_Miner, Liberals actually had a minority government from 2004 (when Anglophone Paul Martin Jr. upset the Francophone Grit idea--prevalent since 1984--that the Grits would collapse catastrophically under non-Francophone leadership, as it did in that year's election; of course, they missed the fact that it was due to Pierre Trudeau's 1982 "birding" of his own nation) till 2006 when they fell due to Martin's corruption (no surprise). The fact that they have to gang-up with a declared-treasonous party (BQ) to do this shows the extent of the loyalty (basically matches that of Trudeau--none) of Grits and Numpty-Dhimmicruds at federal level.

Lon's posts show (no surprise to this dual Canuck-Yank) a complete ignorance (about Canada).

For Ted: I actually advocated a few years ago trading MN (groat-trough US state) for AB (staunchly conservative province, which would provide the bonus of LOTS of energy--in oil, gas and ultra-clean coal; especially as it also happens to be "my" province) though admittedly Harper could have issues about that. Basically, every Canuck election since 1993 has shown the deadweightness of morOntario (almost 40% of Canada's population, and where Grits got most of their seats).

C_Miner
Yes, Harper dropped it eventually when he realized he'd gone too far. But what did he think was going to happen when he proposed the bill in the first place? Did he think the Liberals had become so beaten-down they'd go along with this? With taking away unions' right to strike? With selling off the CBC? This was a TERRIBLE move by Harper, and he may well lose his job because of it.

I'm not all that fond of the vote subsidy either (at least, I think it should be restructured so it mainly helps smaller parties like the Greens or Christian Heritage or whoever and not the big four parties, who ought to be able to stay liquid through their own fundraising) but if they wanted to do that there were much better ways of presenting the option. Fifty million isn't so much money that the program HAD to be eliminated in its entirety right away (compared to the money we throw at, say, Afghanistan, while we wait for countries with actual militaries to back us up). He overreached and pushed the Liberals too far--I can't see why they'd treat Dion the way they did if they were planning this ahead of time.

Just be happy
That you guys can actually get rid of government on a moment's notice. We're stuck with BO for four years, short of him murdering someone.

svpallala
Your comment would cut more deeply if you actually explained where what I said was wrong. But that would, of course, require that your comment have content.

The grouping together of parties, even ones that do not normally get together, is not a coup on the Canadian system. The idea that this could not happen in Canada would be more convincing were it not the case that it is happening in Canada.

Perhaps the Canadian people will not stand for this and will turn out the Liberals and Socialists for being willing to accept the support of the PQ, but only time will tell on that point.

There is certainly an advantage to being a Canadian in understanding Canadian politics. But having a conservative slant on politics can be a counterbalancing negative. If you expect every Canadian to be offended by things that offend you as a conservative, you will often be surprised in this way.

There's no need for panic
First of all, the Governor-General approved the Prime Minister's request to suspend Parliament until late January. That buys him time to negotiate a stronger coalition agreement with smaller parties.

Second, the author's characterization of the Liberal/NDP actions shows a profound lack of understanding of the Canadian political system. The people of Canada do not elect a government. They elect a Parliament, and that Parliament is responsible for creating the government. The government, if it is not strong enough to withstand a no-confidence vote, can be dissolved at any time by that vote. Please read, research, and understand before you try raising a false alarm.

A New Deal for the Canucks
Here's what you'll get: All of New England, plus half of New York State (but we keep the big apple). We'll throw in Newark NJ (because it sucks), too. And that's not all! If you act now, we'll send you free of charge the bottom of the state of Michigan (we get to keep the UP 'cause it's real nice there).

In exchange for all that land and all those socialists and liberals, Canada will let the real Americans visit Canada for free, anytime, especially the Canadian Rockies. Also, Americans get to attend any NHL hockey games FREE. That's it!

Frankly, I think it's a good offer. America gets rid of socialist/liberal punks that we don't need and the Canadian Liberal Party gets lots of voters.

Call us. Operators are standing by.

mind our business
I happened to catch on Cspan the debate in Canadian Parliament. What I think is significant and regrettable is that the tone and 'attitude' of the politicians there is very North American. The sarcasism and snipping of the party spokespersons reminded me of an old 3 stooges show and some of the comments posted on TH. A dreadful commonality. NYUK, NYUK.
Trading 'he said - he said' and insults, for some, is way of communicating displeasure but doesnt get much done.
Beavis and Buthead were funny in their day but I see them reincarnated in Political office just north of here and it isnt funny now. Putting up with such rants and tantrums on blogs is one thing but that behavior in a National deliberating body, I have my worries. Could be classified a disability in DSM4 and get a check from social security.

No confidence vote
I have to envy them their ability to throw out a politician before his term ends. That's one thing I wish we had.

Hyperbole
No. You're not joking. Your ignorance of Canada's democratic system is definitely not funny. Yes, you are hyperbolizing. In fact, you're spreading disinformation.

Your perputuating what was formerly a myth of American ignorance about Canada. Apparently, it's true.

Stick to your knitting

further to svpallala
You forgot to mention that while the Liberals were in the minority government they knew that there was a vote coming up that they would lose (and that the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc had had discussions about who could and would work together when that happened) and that the PM at the time changed the rules (with the Governor General's approval) to prevent any votes of substance being brought up by the other parties.

The difference this time, in my mind, is that the released tapes of the NDP tele-conference caucus meeting (that they invited a Conservative member to and after he had checked in as himself and been approved to receive the message, he taped) showed that at least one of the parties was acting in bad faith with their oaths of office, never had any intention of working with the party that has the most seats, and tried to design a situation to grab power in a means not in accordance with the power structure that the Canadian people chose in the former election. It was legal, but the GG correctly chose to allow the elected government a chance to try to rule before a deposition could occur.

The most recent poll results show a huge Conservative bump. As my first post said, the grassroots are angry at this attempted coup (legal or not).

Warren?
Warren, come on now. Let's at least be honest with ourselves. The liberal factions in Canada have a heads up game on just about any other liberal outfit in the world. Again, as I said before, liberals have that inherent self satisfying trait that could never be matched in the most progressive conservative politico, anywhere. Harper should call out the troops, well those that may feel the mood to participate, stand down the liberlips and get about his business of running his country.

Re: Bailout???
Look, I don't mind bailing the big three out if they get the same deal as the rest of us when we want a lone from the bank, except much higher interest rate!!!

But what about the NAFTA Highway?
Does having a Conservative Government in Canada mean that their end of the Super highway won't get built or the SPP will go down the tube?

After what went down here this past election, we should all probably pay more attention to how our government is running and raping our pocketbooks!

A New Deal for the Canuks
To DavidMac TX - New Deal for the Canucks.
Better yet David, I believe the border runs the wrong direction, it should be north-south between Manitoba and Ontario and down the Missippi R to New Orleans. The entrepreneurs and workers (for the most part) out west and the belly to the trough bunch out east. The east would soon freeze in the dark.

Rachel Marsden :: Townhall.com Columnis
This column shows an appalling lack of knowledge about Canadian political system (at least the author knows that Canada exists, which is more than many Americans do).

In Canada, we do not elect a government, like you do in USA. We vote for members of Parliament, and MPs then elect a government. In the current Parliament, there are 143 conservative MPs and 163 MPs belonging to the left and centre left parties. So there is nothing revolutionary about centre left parties forming a coalition to form a government.

Anyway, now that the Parliament has been prorogued, we have a true dictatorship in Canada, for the first time in its history. The government does not have the support of the people. In Canada, Parliament represents the people and the government does not have the support of the Parliament. For the next tow months, Canada will be a dictatorship comparable to Cuba or Zimbabwe. The name of our Prime Minister could more appropriately be Fidel Harper, rather than Stephen Harper.

Anyway, Harper isn't out of the woods yet. He may well lose the vote in January and thus lose power. He has one more way left then. He could declare emergency and assume emergency, dictatorial powers permanently. It remains to be seen if he adopts that option. He has said he will employ every legal means to stay in office, and declaring emergency is a perfectly legal way.

Financial imbeciles seek power
When in power, Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his Liberal party decided that tax money from all Canadians would be awarded to all parties at the rate of just under $2. per vote adding up to some millions. This has the effect of conscripting tax money from Canadians for parties they do not wish to support, especially the Quebec separatist party Bloc Quebecois that aims to break up Canada.

Incidentally, this is not the only governmental support to political parties in Canada since voluntary individual donors get a 75% tax break.

The Conservatives proposed doing away with the first kind of tax support, not the second (as the party with the most votes, their own loss would be the greatest). The four leftist parties set up a squeal that you could hear from the Atlantic to the Pacific. With their rabid objections, they were admitting a) that they cannot get sufficient funds from their own voters and b) their financial house is in such a shambles that loss of a few million is an existential threat.

So now this group of financial imbeciles and socialists pretend they have to wrest control from a Conservative steady hand on the tiller and a prime minister with a degree in economics to "save" the Canadian economy which is sounder than most but not immune to world wide problems, especially their largest trading partner the US.

They've mismanaged their party funds to the point of bankruptcy but now want to seize control of the national budget and loot the treasury for their pet constituencies.

Welcome to the banana republic of the North.

My Canadian Friend Be Happy
The Canadian
Location: UT
Reply # 2
Date: Dec 4, 2008 - 11:17 PM EST Rachel Marsden :: Townhall.com Columnis
---
This column is right on the money and then more. I am happy the Canada you love is in good hands, and I can assure you the PM will do just fine.

Are you in favor of Same-sex-marriage? If you are not, you are in The PM Stephen J. Harpers camp. If you are, you are in the US Democrats camp. You don't know what is happening up here and I write to these men regularly, and receive their correspondence as well. I love may country and the Canadian sunset, and the good people I know there.

Cheers!

PM Harper has achieved what the Liberals or the NDP never could, because the do not understand the principles of economy. They apply political fixes that make them rich while the Canadians foot the bill. Just like I witnessed in Mexico with Pres. Luis S. Echeveria back in the 70s' after ripping of the Mexican people, divorced his wife and tried to become the sec. of the U.N., but truth prevailed.

Thanks For The Patition
There are now "281898" Signitures at 18 per min. app.

Canadians Only please at
http://www.petitiononline.com/CANADIAN/petition.html

Ms Marsden Thank you! Right on!

Liberals Becoming Couservative
One not of how some Liberals feel about this.
I Quote the name will remain privite.

"This liberal is now a conservative. Sell out your country for power .Its time for the west to start taking care of the west.I thought more of the green party.The NDP always would do anythig to be in power."

It is a sad time when men become so cunning that the will do anything to win power. I actually feel sorry more for them, and what the have lost, and more respect for the Right Hon, Stephen J. Harper.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.