Today is not the day to cross me February 7, 2006
Today, I am feeling bitchy. Catty, mean, petty, full-on, hardcore bitch. I am full of piss and vinegar. I’m touchy, insensitive, sarcastic, cynical, and there’s a good chance I’ll disagree with whatever you tell me, argue with you just for the sake of arguing, and call you on your bullshit. Fear me, people. I’m not taking prisoners.
Which is why when Beth pointed out the lack of personal attacks on David Emerson, I was immediately incensed. Why hasn’t someone from the Liberal Party paraded in front of the cameras with a basket of weasels, and said, “Look! It’s Emerson’s advisors!” Why hasn’t anyone called him a dipstick or a whore or worse? Why was it okay to call Belinda Stronach these things, but not Emerson? Darren suggests that she shouldn’t throw stones (in regards to comments she made about Emerson), which I have to respectfully disagree with. Stronach gave the Conservatives over a year before she defected, whereas the election in which Emerson was elected as a Liberal was - what? Two, three weeks ago? She tried to work with the party, and Emerson got out while the going was good.
So, I’m going to call him on it. You, David Emerson, seriously mislead your constituents. You didn’t even hesitate to jump ship. You, sir, are a coward and a scoundrel.
This may not have been your intent, but your juxtaposition of “Why was it okay to call Belinda Stronach these things, but not Emerson?” with my post suggests I should be lumped in with that crowd.
In case you missed it, yesterday I wrote:
“Belinda Stronach crossed over in the middle of a term of office, as opposed to days after losing the big game…Plenty of people called Stronach a whore for crossing the floor. I think Emerson’s more deserving of that moniker.”
That said, Stronach, as far as I’m concerned, should keep her mouth shut on this issue. She’s got no credibility on the subject, and nothing she says could possibly help her cause.
My apologies for the delay - it appears that Blogger ate my first response.
My irritation wasn’t directed towards everyone who questions why someone would cross the floor to sit with another party - which, as far as I’m concerned, is a betrayal of the people who voted for the candidate as a representative of one party. They stood for one thing when the constitutents voted for them, now they stand for another, and there’s no mechanism to force them to stand for re-election (you can only recall an elected offical at the provincial level in some provinces, correct?)
What bothers me, firstly, is that Harper and the rest of the Conservatives had some very definite ideas about people who cross the floor, but wasted no time in getting someone to do the very thing they are alleged to be opposed to.
Secondly, the other thing that bothers me is that there aren’t the same attacks leveled at Emerson as there were at Stronach - no one has called him a dipstick, implied he’s whoring himself out, or made pointed comparisons between him and a dog.
Maybe it’s too soon and the wacky comparisons to Emerson and various lowlife creatures are coming soon to a media outlet near me. Or maybe they have been made and I missed them because the sources I consult haven’t ran with them. But it’s the double standard that it’s okay to call her names, not question her loyalty, and not do the same for Emerson.
You might be interested in this Sure By blog .
It’s been several days now and still no one has called Emerson a whore or a dipstick. For some reason the big news seems to be that the Conservatives are mad at Garth Turner for saying that Emerson should resign and stand for re-election as a Tory, which Emerson refuses to do. Despite the fact that Tories were all calling for a law saying that you can’t cross the floor without a by-election.
What a bunch of hypocrits!