Saturday, May 21, 2011


The news this week listed 3 new senate appointees by Harper and well..... at least 2 are not-so-new. They resigned from the senate in order to run as MP candidates, lost, and are now back in the Senate. As with my dislike of my city mayor leaving office for 6 weeks to run as the liberal MP candidate, losing, and then waltzing back in as mayor - I did not like what Harper did with the senators either. Is there an ulterior motive to prove why he believes the senate should be elected? Perhaps. But whatever the 'reason', I dont think it looked very good to start off the new majority with negative headline making.


  1. There is not a single thing PM SH could do that would not generate 'negative headlines' from the LSM. To suggest otherwise is disengenuous. To suggest that he should engage in a specific course of action to avoid 'negative headlines' from the LSM is foolish.

  2. I certainly agree that no matter what Harper does, the media will attack it (or ignore it if it's really good), but it just made me feel 'blah' to read that. The official start date has not even begun yet and everyone against Harper and the conservatives is slobbering to get some really juicy garbage over the next 4 years to use in their campaign (and to think, if they succeed we could end up with an NDP majority - O.M.F.G.)... so I wasnt impressed to see those headlines.

    I voted Conservative, I like Harper and cannot believe it when I hear others say he is evil and the most secretive and manipulative PM we've ever had (actually, those comments make me laugh at their ridiculousness), but that does not mean I have to go along happily with everything Harper does and says.

    And I most certainly did not "suggest that he should engage in a specific course of action to avoid negative headlines from the LSM" anywhere in my post. I said he started off the new majority with negative headlines by doing something that I do not agree with.

    I cannot make blog posts here about how I thoroughly disagreed with my city mayor, freshly re-elected 6 months earlier, for taking a Leave Of Absence to run as the Liberal candidate and then return when he lost... and then turn around and support Senators who fully resigned but then got let back in as appointees when they lost. I believe at least one had only just been put in 5 months before the campaign so it's an almost identical time table to my surprise Liberal mayor (in a city that has voted well over 70% Conservative at the provincial and federal levels for decades).

  3. I think he knew what he was doing from the very beginning...the msm are complaining about being notified just seconds after his meeting with the press was over and now the provinces (at least two) are complaining...silly people...think about it...the complainers didn't want to reform the senate so PMSH showed them just what happens if they don't want to have a election for a senator in their own province...he will make it for them and he will do the choosing. Sure gives the msm something to chew on for the next few days...but I notice that even that subject is fading in the background. People just went through 5 weeks of finger pointing and the people are tired of it and they just don't care, no matter how many ways the senate appointments are presented by the media.

  4. I personally found it telling that the Premiers of the provinces affected AREN'T the ones raising a fuss over this.

    It all comes down to the fact that Mr. Harper needed to appoint those senators in order to gain a majority in that House and chairmanships of the committees, and those two provinces didn't publicly tell him who they would find acceptable.

  5. Too bad all those complaining didn't get some facts. We needed to have the ability to be chairman of all the committees, and those chairs can only change after an election or prorogation. Had the PM waited till after June 2nd, guess who had those chairmanships, where they could stall any and all legislation. There are several bills in the senate that have been stalled that would make the changes the PM wants. Who stopped them, liberals.
    We now have an absolute majority in the senate, with 4 more to come by dec 2011, unless someone decides to hold elections. And another 20 before the next election.
    And cdns did not vote against the 3, only the voters in their ridings did.
    And, regardless of what Pat Martin said, those openings were 2 in que and 1 in NFLD. Who would all you complainers have appointed.

  6. Let's think it through, shall we? When Harper does introduce Senate reform(again) he will now have a majority in the House. He also needs a majority in the Senate. He also needs his Senators to voluntarily give up their extremely cushy jobs. So do you think he can trust two people who just voluntarily gave up those same positions to run for seats in the House? They are a known quantity. They have integrity, and have already shown themselves willing to put the interests of the country above their own interests. How is appointing people who have already proven themselves a bad move here? Seriously, where is the error?

  7. You are right on Jonathan.Anyone complaining about these appointments are only echoing the MSM,who do not give a rats ass about printing the facts or printing the real reason PM Harper appointed these Senators.After going through 6 weeks of MSM BS I would have thought that everyone knew by now that we trust PM Harper and not the press.And to think that we get these comments from our own supporters who should know better is disappointing.And this is happening while he is not governing is absurd.Parliament opens June 3rd folks,lets start supporting PM Harper.He has the interest of Canada in his every move.Give him the time to make those moves without dissing him.



These are my views and opinions. If you don't agree or think I am sadly misguided, that is your view. Feel free to share your thoughts but I also reserve my right to moderate content (IE foul language, excessive flaming, etc).