![[small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGczmWu7Wwc/SdCJyy2LN1I/AAAAAAAABWE/ABYCkbJaKaQ/s1600/small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg)
This just occurred to me to ask after reading Fantino’s little quote from Impolitical’s post just now. I’m referring to his little ranting about the “risky Michael Ignatieff coalition…” Frankly, I thought that coalition talk was going to stop after the Liberals and the Harpercons came to an agreement over the new Afghan mission and the Bloc supporting the F35 purchase. Guess I was wrong.
Anyway, on to my question: Why is it (according to many journos, columnists, talk radio hosts, pundits, bloggers, even the Timmy Horton’s crowd) whenever either the Liberals, the Bloc or the NDP either vote with, come to an agreement with or successfully negotiate with the Harpercons, it’s an “excercise in Bipartisanship” that is to be commended, but whenever two or all three opposition parties do those same things, it’s an “evul coalition”?
double think, the ability to hold two opposing beliefs at once. Doesn’t have to be true, just has to be repeated often enough with the right amount of fear and contempt. Bastards.
Agree with 900ft. It’s easy to say “they are the coalition” because when you partner up with the government, you are forwarding a good agenda for Canada. Let’s not forget, either, that Harper would have jumped into bed in a heartbeat to get power. He signed the papers to prove it in 2004.