As if it proves his apparent contention that Conservative cabinet minister Gary Lunn is lying and embarrassed on behalf of the government he represents, National Post columnist John Ivison asserts today “Mr. Lunn, blushing furiously…” explained his side to the media. Mr. Ivison was no doubt not blushing as he wrote that, but he should have been.
For those of you who don’t get Fox News Channel, let me explain the liberal news media to you: This is another tendentious device used by the liberal media to report a story their way. Another technique is to begin a story with the words “Refusing to back down”, or “Harper makes no apologies for …”, or publishing a horribly damaging-sounding headline like “Harper Trying to Kill Canada” suffixing it with the words “…critics say”.
Ivison is attempting to retell what he’d like all Canadians to believe is the unfolding drama —or rather the drama behind the drama — which is in actual fact absolutely no drama at all whatsoever. That makes this all pretty boring, then. That is unless you’re a liberal media writer looking for something to write about, who will do or say or write whatever he thinks can make a conservative look bad or at least raise questions in the minds of often confused and uninformed (at least properly) Canadians (those are mostly the ones who don’t get Fox News Channel and never visit this web site). It’s a wonder Canadians poll in favor of Conservatives at all, and yet they do. Imagine if the media were fair and balanced.
Ivison makes the common and now boring mistake of tripping over his (and the Canadian liberal media generally) own sense of self importance:
…Ms. Keen was eventually fired, as Liberal committee member David McGuinty put it, “in the dark of night, when Canadians weren’t watching.” The shabby decision to announce her termination in a press release issued at 11 p.m. on Tuesday was presumably taken in the hope that the media might tire of the subject by the next day. Faint hope. It made most journalists even more determined to report the news—and angry to boot.
Trying to bolster one’s point about a Conservative government action by quoting disaffecting, ideologically rabid Liberal-leftists like David McGuinty; and channeling the thoughts of the unnamed liberals in the media whom we all know are on red-alert these days (and I do mean red), desperate to defame the Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper any way they can —is hardly irreducible proof that a wrong has been committed—nor that an unfolding drama worthy of our attention is at play here. Neither is the case in fact, all the media’s “anger” notwithstanding (as if we care one whit how “angry” the media is made to feel about anything, ever), oh and notwithstanding their “even more determined” efforts —which as I see it are manifestly daily efforts to defame any or all conservatives and their ideas. It’s that reputation that precedes them, and therefore fails them. But nice try.
Ivison begs the question in the form of a question: “But does anyone seriously think Mr. Harper emerges from the isotope screw-up looking more competent or trustworthy?”. ANSWER: Yes, actually. I do think he is now more competent and trustworthy. There you go. That’s what you call a boomerang question.
I’ve been calling for Harper and his cabinet to fire most of the liberals and leftists and sometimes outright Marxists who have been appointed, by decades of liberal-left politicians and their appointees, to the now absolutely countless liberal-left committees, agencies, bureaus, “corporations”, tribunals, departments, regulators, and sundry other diocese of liberal-left nanny-statism, most of which were designed (by those same liberals) to advance their own liberal-left secular-progressive theocracy in Canada. The second part of my call has been for Harper and his cabinet to then dump most of those agencies (…) and hire good solid true blue conservatives to lead whatever is left standing. They should do the same with the courts including the Supreme Court. They should do this for twenty years if they can stay in power that long (looks like they can). Then and only then will we have something resembling balance in this country. It will take that long. And then we will have a far smaller, less intrusive, forward-looking, principled, sound nation-building governing regimen in place. That’s actual progress.
Governments (all liberal over the past 40 years) have appointed these people to Canada’s countless, oftentimes useless or worse branches of liberalism, and now, they have every right to fire them when things aren’t going their way. To pretend otherwise is to reveal nothing but a whiny liberal bias and an embarrassingly obvious inclination to behave as a pantywaist, caterwauling every time things that were set up to make it easy for liberalism to sweep the nation, such as creating all these regulators and agencies and appoint liberals to all the leading posts, are suddenly used in precisely the opposite way to undo that damage. It’s a bit of a hoist with one’s own petard! And it’s just funny to those of us who see these things clearly and objectively and who have Canada’s best interests—rather than the interests of Fabian socialists or liberals—at heart.
I suggest we do here as the Americans do there: make it quite clear that civil servants in charge of big departments (those that remain after the likes of me are done with ‘em!) all serve at the pleasure of the current Prime Minister and cabinet, and make it a routine to hire those people—new people if you want —that you want to lead these organizations after the official swearing in. Resigning upon new election results would simply be routine. Make it clear that these are political appointments. They all have been, after all. You want to change it now, suddenly, even though it has clearly been all politics all this time? You reveal an interest other than democracy and Canada, then. And personally, I’m on Canada’s side.
Politics is hard, huh liberals?