Well, many who are completely disillusioned and even apathetic to the point of not even going out to vote due to the facts politicians are dishonest. Well, how’s about cheerleaders from the Harpercon media?
Jonathan Kay basically advocates for the Liberal Party to destroy itself. It’s pretty much the title of his latest monsterpiece from the National Pest. At first, I thought it was typical hardcore Harpercon pushing for that totalitarian regime for Master Stevie. I mean, the title is pretty self-explanatory if one chose not to go further.
The Liberal Party must be destroyed — for its own good
Uh, no Johnny boy; you mean for your (and your wingnut anti-feminist mommy, and the other Harpercon cheerleaders).
Yes, he is definitely his mama’s boy, innit he?
He is pushing for the merger between the Liberals and NDP. But with a different slant; all traces of anything Liberal party must go. Leads me to wonder: is he afraid of the potential success the sons of old big name Liberal veterans: Justin Trudeau and Domenic Leblanc. I think Johnny Kay sees that, as Craig Oliver pointed out in last week’s Question Period; that Leblanc and Trudeau are the future of the Liberal party. I think most of us know that neither one of them would even need a coalition/merger and with either at the helm, such talk would cease and if Steve and his disciples continued to chat about it, they would really look stupid.
The best thing for the Liberal party to do sooner rather than later is to dump both Iggy and Rae and send the dinosaurs back to their retirement where they belong.
Johnny knows that as do the rest of the cheerleaders. They know also that the math just isn’t there for a Liberal/NDP merger/coalition. A great way for Steve to get his totalitarian regime as this ‘arrangeement’ put together in a haphazard half-assed way would not only lose but get destroyed just the way they want it.
Nice try, Johnny Boy. I think most of us can see through your motives.
I wonder if Fox News North will have mommy and son kinda show?
I just wish more of these Harpercon cheerleaders would be more honest with themselves as well as to their readers/viewers/listeners. They should really come out to tell us what they really mean. In the case of Johnny Boy, he should just admit as Mary T did not that long ago: that he is so desperate for a Harpercon majority that he wants zero opposition to them.
It also begs the question, those progressives cursing the Liberals for not being oppositional enough as of late. Far from perfect, I agree. But, if such desperate folks like Mary T and the spawn of the queen she hack of NattyPo, hisself as well as many others, I’m sure, basically calling for the elimination of the Liberal party (as well as NDP, Bloc Quebecois and even the Greens, of course) because perhaps Steve won’t be back if he only yields another minority and more than likely, would be replaced with a former Progressive Conservative rather than a ReformaTory.
When Harpercon cheerleading mama’s boys advocate for mergers and use words like “destroy” in the same article, I know that my cynicism over this kind of merger/coalition isn’t misplaced.
One consolation though; had it not been for the Queen hack at National Pest, Johnny Boy wouldn’t be able to get any job as a hack, not even a rag like National Pest. No, he would actually have to get a real job in some kind of unskilled labour that involves wearing a stupid hat and asking “…would you like fries with that?”
I wonder if mama Babs is still breast feeding him?
![[small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGczmWu7Wwc/SdCJyy2LN1I/AAAAAAAABWE/ABYCkbJaKaQ/s1600/small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg)
CK – your “totalitarian” characterization of the Harper government just provides ammunition for your dedicated critics, such as Patrick Ross, to belittle and ridicule any point you are seeking to make, they will point out opposition to their leader’s rule may be ineffective but it is not prohibited or banned outright, much to the dismay of many zealous blogging tory supporters who wish it were otherwise.
You might more accurately describe the Harper regime as a parliamentary regime with “bonapartist” aspirations, bonapartist in the ( Wikipedia) sense as “a broad centrist or center-right political movement that advocates the idea of a strong and centralized state, based on popular support of a strongman or caudillo”, or per Merriam-Webster as “a political movement associated chiefly with authoritarian rule usually by a military leader ostensibly supported by a popular mandate”.
Few would argue with an “authoritarian” characterization, as opposed to “totalitarian”, with the notion of a “caudillo” who seeks to concentrate power and dispense with the established rules of parliamentary democracy or constitutional republic. This characterization encompasses not merely both Bonapartes, original and nephew, but figures such Franco, Salazar, de Gaulle and any number of South American strongmen – and it can, within reason, be attributed to aspirations of the current government. Of course, both fascism and stalinism – right and left wing bonapartism – fall within the purview of a broader definition of bonapartism, but that is the problem with broad generalizations. Both Hitler’s or Mussolini’s regime, as opposed to that of de Gaulle, may have fallen under the definition or characterization of right wing bonapartism, but the former were in no way similar or equivalent to the latter.
ck Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 6:26 PM
With no opposition parties, Harpercons do become totalitarian. It provides ammo to them only because they refuse to be honest, in saying that’s what they really want. Like Johnny Boy, they should admit that’s what they really want; no opposition parties to get in the way of Steve’s majority.
Did you catch the slogan on that 2009 by election placard? “de l’action pas d’election’?” What would you call it?
Here are some definitions of totalitarianism: Tell me they don’t fit Steve:
First from Princeton University
S: (n) dictatorship, absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny (a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.))
S: (n) absolutism, totalitarianism, totalism (the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government)
From Wikipedia:
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[2] Totalitarianism is generally characterised by the coincidence of authoritarianism (where ordinary citizens have no significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct the most significant aspects of public and private life).[3]
Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of state terrorism.
From Merriam-Webster.com
Main Entry: to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)tō-ˌta-lə-ˈter-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1926
1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority
I could go on… but it will get redundant. Now tell me none of that fits Steve to a tee…hell, he’s even getting his own 24/7 infomercial channel.
Oh, and if Steve is showing himself to be only centrist, it’s because of his minority situation and, such as it is, an opposition of some kind.
Remember, he used to say that once he got through with Canada, we would no longer recognize the place. Gerry Ritz in 2008 said when they get their majority, “all bets were off”.
Here is a blogger who compiled all kinds of links with stuff Steve said in his Reform and NCC hay day.
Here is another:
Again, I’m sure I can find more. I use those two links because they have compiled other links…so one doesn’t have to go too far to look.
I always provide links to such things. If any of my readers don’t click them and see for themselves…well…
As for today’s cons, there is absolutely nothing redeemable for the most part about them.
Same thing when they screech about Marci MacDonald’s new book being lies and fraud. Me thinks they dost protest too much. These very hysterics are indicative of they know what she says is true, but they don’t want it being said out loud before next election, you understand. That’s the kind of rule they dream of having.
I think the point I’m trying to make here is that there is are multiple variants of abusive regimes which supercede established democracies, multiple shadings, extending from those who concentrate power, abuse or ignore parliamentary rules or constitutional checks, those that ignore democratic opposition or public sentiment and govern despite them, to authoritarian regimes that suspend parliament altogether, or contravene their constitution and disband, drive out and muzzle their opposition, to totalitarian regimes which physically exterminate all opposition. Totalitarianism, for example fascism or stalinism as common example, is the extreme variant, but that hardly describes our situation. There is a difference between playing loose with the rules and ignoring the opposition, to muzzling any and every opposition, to going to the extreme, rounding up all opposition supporters in a sports arena and physically exterminating them.
That’s why I considered the “totalitarian” characterization excessive.
ck Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Point taken, but the other side; the Blogging SupposiTories and other Harpercon cheerleaders in the Mainstream media are either painting Steve to be a normal garden variety red tory or so-called small c conservative when it couldn’t be further from the truth. No matter how any slices it, he has proven to be more and more abusive as time goes on. This regime of Steve’s does follow the definitions I’ve provided.
Speaking of Blogging SupposiTories and cheerleaders, you catch a cartoon Montreal Simon did of Dr Jabba the Roy in a bodysuit? It’s hilarious! a tad traumatizing , but funny.