(H)ow do old Reformers justify to themselves Harper's most recent Senate appointments? What do they say when they speak privately? How can they possibly disagree with Maclean's magazine columnist Andrew Coyne, who so aptly described these appointments as the "most obnoxiously partisan, disgustingly sycophantic choices" Harper could make?
...
These particularly partisan appointments jackhammer away at the the bedrock of old Reform principles that also demanded balanced budgets, prudent spending and an end to pandering to Quebec -- other issues from which Harper has parted ways.
It makes one wonder whether some old Reformers are now privately wondering: "Aren't we really right back to the days of Mulroney?"
All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
On double-edged swords
Don Martin seems to think the Cons are headed for a fall love-in between Stephen Harper and the previously-exiled Brian Mulroney. I'm not sure there's much reason to think that'll be the case - but as Murray Mandryk points out, that may carry at least as many costs as it does opportunities in terms of cementing a connection between the two:
Labels:
brian mulroney,
cons,
murray mandryk,
patronage,
senate,
stephen harper
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment