There has been tempered praise around the blogs at the decision of the Liberals not to allow Carolyn Parrish back into the fold.
At first appearance, this seems a principled decision -- they have chosen to forgo stronger numbers rather than take back a person who at the very least, has a knack for making insensitive comments at sensitive times.
The truth is, while she remains outside of the Liberal caucus, Carolyn Parrish is an asset to the Liberals, and they know it -- which is why she'll happily remain on the outside, while continuing to vote with her 'former' party.
Carolyn Parrish can say anything about anyone -- getting a Liberal message out there, without technically representing the Liberals. She is an unofficial spokesperson from whom they can distance themselves when the rhetoric gets too over-the-top.
It's brilliant really. Whether it's by design is anyone's guess. But I believe they know that with Parrish just on the periphery of the party, they can have their cake and eat it too. Parrish can continue with her diatribes, and because she is not a member of the party, they have no authority, nor any reason to reign her in. She'll be like a trial balloon -- if her rants have traction they can go with them, and if they are unpopular, they can shrug and say 'she's not one of us.'
It is the perfect Liberal set up and typical of the duplicity of their leadership.
crossposted to Civitatensis.
canadianna
28 comments:
You give Paul Martin too much credit.
Even though he has been keeping his government alive against long odds, he has done so with blunt force tactics and not Machiavellian shrewdness.
Carolyn Parrish is being kept out because she insulted him personally, and Paul Martin's skin is too thin to withstand it.
I think you under-estimate Paul Martin -- and at the very least, his advisors.
They are shrewd operators and swift to take advantage of any situation that can give them an edge. Parrish gives them the best of two worlds. They are paid to see these sorts of opportunities and to manufacture them.
You're wrong Loyalist. It's likely that Parrish was legitimately kicked out of the party and has all this time been kissing ass to get back in. My guess is that party statagists have told Parrish "Do what your told and magically 3 weeks before we call an election we will all kiss and make up and you will be handsomely rewarded in the next term". What a surprise.
Had Martin welcomed back into caucus, conservatives would have had a tantrum.
So he didn't. And you're trying to have a tantrum anyway?
Honest, you guys. Just no making you happy about anything, is there?
Had Martin welcomed Parrish back into caucus, conservatives would have had a tantrum.
So he didn't. And you're trying to have a tantrum anyway?
Honest, you guys. Just no making you happy about anything, is there?
Parrish is a liberal through and through and the liberals are trying to not look like liberals right now.
Mississauga should be renamed Missassaugastan so of course Parrish has support there.
Well, the Liberals have found yet another edge against the Cons. Gets you right pissed off, dunnit.
Ball-less said: "Had Martin welcomed Parrish back into caucus, conservatives would have had a tantrum.
So he didn't. And you're trying to have a tantrum anyway?
Honest, you guys. Just no making you happy about anything, is there?"
Ball-less, you would call any dissent by Conservatives a tantrum while saying Parrish's idiotic remarks are legitimate commentary.
As for making us happy, well, for starters, I know watching you get thrown into a tar pit and have feathers dumped on you would make me very happy. --- John G
"Ball-less, you would call any dissent by Conservatives a tantrum while saying Parrish's idiotic remarks are legitimate commentary."
I realize that anyone whose idea of sophisticated humour is the terms "Ball-less" is going have a hard time with this, but I'll try. Listen carefully.
Parrish is an idiot. Got that? Do you understand what I'm saying?
Good.
Now, with that in mind, read what I actually said. Thanks.
Balbulican said:Had Martin welcomed back into caucus, conservatives would have had a tantrum.
So he didn't. And you're trying to have a tantrum anyway?
I couldn't care less. In or out of the caucus, Parrish votes Liberal, she walks Liberal, she talks Liberal. If they'd have taken her back, my reaction would have been 'figures'. I only commented on this issue at all because I noticed other people suggesting the Liberals had done the 'principled' thing -- and I don't believe they had. My speaking on it doesn't make it a tantrum.
Mike said: Well, the Liberals have found yet another edge against the Cons. Gets you right pissed off, dunnit.
Why would it? If Parrish is the Liberal 'edge' then lucky us.
“Well, the Liberals have found yet another edge against the Cons. Gets you right pissed off, dunnit.”
After all that has happened, it amazes me that the Liberals still have supporters out there. People don’t have to vote Conservative. Vote NDP, Green, etc. But how anyone can come to the defense of the Liberals after all that has happen – especially someone like Parrish – is quite surprising.
Even though Balbulican doesn’t state specifically who he votes for, it’s likely the Liberal Party.
There’s no dealing with people like that, really. They’re hypocrites. Their perspective on Adscam: “These are only allegations”; “Why taint an entire party for the actions of a few?”; and “We need to wait for Gomery to report before making a final decision.”
Contrast this to Liberal accusations of the Conservatives having a so-called “hidden agenda.”
Spot the inconsistency?
The Liberals are innocent until proven guilty, in spite of the testimonies heard implicating them in fraud and corruption. The Conservatives, by contrast, are guilty until proven innocent, in spite of no supporting evidence.
Liberal double-speak.
I've never voted Liberal. But it amuses me to no end to watch the utter political ineptitude of the Conservatives. The ruling party is embroiled in one of Canada's biggest political scandels ever, and you still can't get people to like you. It's hilarious.
I know. It’s pretty disturbing, isn’t it?
Oh, I don’t mean the CPC is disturbing, I mean Canadians are. No principle, no integrity … it’s very disturbing.
The Librano$ would have been thrown out years ago in any other country.
You know what I’m most proud of? 12 years ago I threw my party out over corruption. Liberal voters back then told me, “You know, you’re doing the right thing. The Tories must go – they’re corrupt … you’ll be doing your party a favour by having them take a timeout, so they can regroup … they will be a better party for it. It’s about principle. You must take a stand against corruption, even though it hurts the party you support.”
I didn’t vote in the ’93 election because I could never vote Liberal. And the Reform Party – I just didn’t have enough information at the time.
11 years later (last year), people like me asked Liberals voters to show consistency, to live by their words of 12 years ago.
But they would have none of it, which means what they said to be 12 years ago was lies, all lies.
Liberal voters have no principle, no integrity, which explains the reason why they like that party.
I am proud to be consistent.
The burden of being NDP or CPC is that these party carry with them genuine ideals and philosophies beyond simply getting elected. The Liberals have no such burden, power, for power's sake, and above all maitaining the Statist Elite now in place is their battle cry. In this way, they are free to approach situations from a purely logical point of view; in otherwords, what will win ridings. The NDP and CPC on the other hand, although desiring power as well, are hamstrung in that they seek it within the constraints of specific philosophies. If the Liberals could be characterized in simple human terms, they'd be sociopaths, because sociopaths are never burdened by emotion or philosophy, they just play to win... period.
If Martin's actions often seem at odds with themselves, think in terms of winning, and his actions make perfect sense. It's just a matter of calculating the various sides then taking the winning track... rightwing, leftwing, center, means nothing. You can be pacifist one time, then beat the war drums the next; supranational one time, then nationalistic the next, libertarian and conservative all at once, while espousing socialist dogma. It's the perfect game for those who simply have a statist power elite to protect, and who only care about being elected.
Spot on.
Yep, I agree with that.
It's a good setup for them. She's associated with the Liberals without being a member. That way, the can attract members of the looney left to the party.
Parish is not a liberal...actually she's a political oportunist that will screw over her own nation to appease the radical factionalism that has taken over her riding assn.
W.L. Mackenzie Redux-- Sure sounds like a Liberal to me.
Speaking of Liberals...
Now that Peter McKay and Belinda Stronach are a couple again, how long do you think it will be before he jumps ship?
noel, how long will it be til Belinda is demoted to some useless "secretary of state" portfolio, one she won't have trouble with?
Don't give them too much credit, lady. It's been done before.
"Jumpin' Jim Jeffords", Senator from Vermont, did the exact same thing down here.
He left the Republican party, whom he never voted with anyway, and became an "Independent" that voted in lockstep with the Democrat party.
No matter that everything he did or said agreed with the Democrats, he and they always insisted that his was an "independent" voice.
The only reason that he didn't come out as an outright Democrat was because they were afraid that it may piss off the real Republicans who actually voted for him as such. That and the fact that they could use him, willingly, as an "independent" voice.
Why would "real Republicans" vote for a guy that votes with the Demcrats on everything and not the actual Republican candidate?
Parrish certainly isn't a Chretien Liberal. Is she a Martin Liberal?
This theory has some merit.
Parrish stands as an example of Martin's ridiculous priorities. One can say as many bigoted and prejudced things about certain other nationalities as one wants and still carry the big red "L," but step out of line with Master Martin or dare question the PMO, and you're out on your ear.
C, are you on vacation or just on vacation from blogging?
Cheers.
Here are some things you can do to help your child develop. Show your child that you care about him/her and that you are dependable. Children who feel loved are more likely to be confident. Your child must believe that, no matter what, someone will look out for him/her. Give your baby or toddler plenty of attention, encouragement, hugs and lap time. Set a good example. Children imitate what ever they see?
Link to my site: child care new york
Post a Comment