( Ducking! )
Crosslinked:
ADSCAM: Click the picture, goto the "last," and work back for the latest-
Posted on 05/18/2005 2:31:37 AM PDT by Clive
Let's just call it the Blond Ambition tour. After all, that's what this romp into federal politics has been all about right from the get-go for Belinda Stronach -- she of the short attention span and long bottom line.
The billion-heiress' traitorous jump to the sinking Liberal ship yesterday proved several things -- mostly that this is a woman of little intelligence and even less principles who cares about one thing more than anything -- power. Her power.
As Conservative party Leader Stephen Harper said yesterday following the bombshell press conference held in Ottawa between Stronach and Paul Martin: "There's no grand principles involved in this decision -- just ambition."
Indeed, Harper told the Ottawa press gang that recently he told his wife Laureen that he suspected Stronach was going to cause some trouble.
"I spoke with my wife only a few days ago and said that I thought it had become obvious to Belinda that her leadership ambitions could not be reached in this party regardless of whether or not we win the next election."
In other words, even if the Conservatives lose the next election (heaven forbid!) -- which would mean the end of Harper's leadership -- the helm of the party would almost certainly be handed over to Peter MacKay, Stronach's lover -- who now appears to be an ex-lover.
How's this for ethics? Stronach didn't bother telling her lover about her intentions to jump into bed with the Liberals until just moments before her press conference with the PM. Is it any wonder the woman's been divorced twice? Talk about a kick to the cojones, or worse, an ice pick to the heart.
Stronach, 39, said she was very conflicted about her decision to cross the floor right into a cabinet position.
"I cannot exaggerate how hard this was for me," she said at the press conference.
If it really was hard, wouldn't she have at least talked it over with one confidante in the Conservative party -- presumably the man she shared her bed with?
During the press conference, Stronach admitted it was during a function last Thursday in Toronto -- when she ran into longtime friends, former Ontario Liberal premier David Peterson and his wife Shelly -- that she started thinking about jumping ship.
Conservative campaign co-chair John Reynolds said what he finds most upsetting is while Stronach was negotiating and considering defecting, she sat through weekend caucus meetings where Tory election strategies were plotted.
"From an ethical standpoint, to sit there and soak in the information and then go to the other side is simply wrong," said Reynolds.
It's worse than that. It's treachery, plain and simple.
She should have come up with an excuse and bowed out, instead she took the election strategy of the Conservatives -- a party she helped form -- with her to the dark side.
And yesterday she had the gall to talk about ethics? As Harper pointed out, Stronach stood up in the House of Commons and voted in favour of bringing down the government on May 10. Stronach said yesterday: "I do have a concern that lining up with the Bloc is not good for Canada to defeat this budget and to trigger an election."
Yet, on March 7 in a speech to the House she said: "At its core, the budget is flawed and defective..."
The Tories decided, quite independently, based on the confessions of Liberal fraud and theft coming out of the Gomery inquiry, that such a corrupt and financially irresponsible government (that has made $23.5 billion in new spending promises since April 21) has to be brought down. What the Bloc decides to do is its business. What's more, if the Bloc is seeing a surge in its popularity, it's entirely due to Liberal corruption.
For Stronach, power wasn't coming fast enough for her within the Conservative party and this spoiled rich kid and neophyte CEO of her Daddy's autoparts company, is accustomed to being catapulted into positions far above her capacity.
Perhaps blond ambition is the wrong term. It's more like blind ambition.
-
Crosslinked:
ADSCAM: Click the picture, goto the "last," and work back for the latest-
When you sleep with dogs, you can't complain when you get fleas...
"mostly that this is a woman of little intelligence and even less principles who cares about one thing more than anything -- power"
Good description of a democrat
I only started following this Canadian Political Firestorm within the last 10 days. I'm trying to sort out the leanings of the various political parties.
Somewhere, within the last week, I saw someone mention the Liberal Party is actually Conservative. I don't know if that is FACT or Opinion.
Can you direct me to a link accurate descriptions/definitons of the various political parties? TIA
IG, somewhere on our sister site, freedominion.ca I saw a post with explantions of the three main parties positions-- but the danged site is down, and has been for hours. I will try to remember to search for it when then come back online.
A politician with no scruples. Former girlfriend of Bill Clinton. Surprise?
Liberals and NDP joined together to form a minority govt, since neither party had enough seats in Parliament to form a govt by themselves.
thank you. I'll keep studying.
the conservative party in canada is more like moderate democrats down here.
the liberal party is the like the far left democrats down here and socialists
the ndp is socialits and commies.
there is nothing in canada to compare to u.s. republicans. a rino like mccain might be ok for the canadian "conservativies" but probably still a bit too conservative.
sorry for the typos
thank you. It's been confusing to sort it out. I hadn't followed Canadian politics until this recent election campaign.
It makes it much easier to follow if you know which party stands for what.
many of the planks of the U.S. Republican party would probably be illegal in Canada... that is why you can't compare Canadian conservatives to U.S. conservatives.
they do not have freedom of speech (more strict restriction on porn and erotica as well as no speech that can be construed as anti-gay), freedom of religion (only within a church building but not in public), or freedom of press (christian broadcasting/talk radio is very controlled and limited) like we do.
You gotta be kidding me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.