Maxime Bernier is showing signs of Dead CON Walking... By showing refreshing candor, the former minister/biker-chick dater has broken one of Stephen Harper's key personal rules -- don't say what we're thinking!
Bernier wrote a letter to La Presse newspaper that said the CON government was wilfully sluggish on environmental action because the decision-makers doubted the evidence of global warming.
"There is, in fact, no scientific consensus. What's certain is that it would be irresponsible to spend billions of dollars to impose unnecessarily stringent regulations to resolve a problem whose gravity we still are not certain about."
Harper's man-of-imobility, Jimmy Prentice, did his best to backpedal and hide from Bernier's assertion, but c'mon. A good portion of CON blogging nation has gone viral over the past six months about how climate change is some leftist conspiracy to lower the activity of our precious bodily fluids.
I think no doubt Harper and his agents have done a good job of hiding their true feelings and true plans for Canada's government. He's tried to hug the mushy middle, done his own Mr. Dithers routine with just an added impersonation of Robert Conrad -- "I dare you to knock this battery off my shoulder! I dare yah!"
CONs have tried a number of ways to test drive their more cavemen-esque ideas on the nation. They've established a habit for punking polls -- getting Trudeau's name atop the Most Hated Canadian poll a couple of years ago was their trial run.
Harper himself has gone on record that stats and facts should carry little weight when it comes to gut instincts.
Evidence is bad. Those April blossoms that are currently decorating the cherry trees in Vancouver? Not a sign of climate change. The ice floes that have disappeared? Nope, no sign. The various changes of ocean species washing ashore in the formerly cold waters of the north pacific? That's right, not a sign. Did you know that you could run an eight-cylinder Cadillac in a 10'x 40' garage, keep the doors closed until it runs out of gas, and the air quality would sustain plenty of life, while healing heartburn and goiters?
That's the kind of thought process the CONs are offering, but in a more strategic way. Attacking the credibility of the data and data-gatherers. Swiftboating the Geeks, in other words.
Are we going to buy it? Apparently, Harper and his gang aren't eager to stand behind their own beliefs, which you'd think would make some of their true believers angry. What's worse is that just by repeating those beliefs, even if its just to deny that they hold them, helps create a faux-truth to them.
That's your Harper. Too nakedly ambitious to lead.
5 comments:
Not at all partisan, are you?
This should not be a political issue but you are helping to make it one. Check ALL the facts before you make such silly statements... they serve to make you look uninformed.
I'm not so sure that Bernier was going "rogue" on this. It's quite possible it was Harper's plan to get Bernier out there with that message to:
1. test the waters
2. let the base know what they really think
Wow Larry, you're as topical and in tune as a McLean Stevenson sitcom. This is a personal blog. It's an opinion piece -- feel free to disagree, give a better take, even act like an out-of-place dimbulb.
By the way, do you think Maxime's partisan?
It's very possible Penlan that you're correct, but we've all seen some weird and inexplicable things pop out of CON mouths in the past few years.
Perhaps his interview was timed to distract from the expected (and delayed due to their unrepentent need of secrecy) blowback when the Guergis s#*+ hit the fan.
Harper could also be testing the water of his true feelings. I have no doubt that we'll see a lot of him in the coming days, especially if Canada trumps all in men's hockey. He's still aiming to manufacture a bounce out of this somehow someway.
rockfish,
Are you saying that the incident at the airport with Princess Guergis happened before Bernier's climate change comments? If so I wasn't aware of that & you could very well be right.
I was sickened, during the playing of the national anthem, at the wonderful Women's Team Gold Medal ceremony, of the camera's focusing 3 times on Great Leader. He had nothing to do with that win, or any Canadian athlete's win for that matter & should not have been shown that many times. I might understand once but 3? GAH!
Post a Comment