I don’t buy the Shapiro absolution. Do you?
So, all of a sudden, Bernard Shapiro, Liberal-named Government ethics commissioner decides to grant his total and complete absolution to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Minister of International Trade and Pacific Gateway and MP for Vancouver-Kingsway, David Emerson, a former Paul Martin Liberal gone Conservative, in the party-switching affair (of which you can read more about in Mr. Emerson, welcome to the Conservative Party, BUT…, which is my lately-published article about the whole thing.)
Don’t you think that Mr. Shapiro might have felt a "little pressure" on his shoulders in the past few weeks, in the end driving him to totally exonerate the Prime Minister and Mr. Emerson in a 14-page document? Need I remind you that Mr. Shapiro was very quick and eager to demand "fairness" and start investigating the recent Emerson party-switch, but when Ms. Belinda Stronach switched from the Conservatives to HIS party, the Liberal Party of Canada, he was nowhere to be found?
This is just me talking, but I’m pretty sure this decision by Shapiro is an intellectually-dishonest one. Mr. Shapiro does not want to exonerate Harper or Emerson in the least bit, and has never wanted to. He might even still hold a grudge against the entire Conservative party for its willingness to point out his partisan, biased behavior and lack of neutrality, therefore jeopardizing his credibility, and his job.
Can you possibly understand how this man thinks? One week he’s head over heels on Harper’s case and then the next, well, he suddenly finds nothing wrong with him and Mr. Emerson. It’s all too clear to me. Shapiro obviously heard the many people who suggested he should be fired from his position and tried to save his ass.
We already knew that this switch was "clean", unlike the Stronach one, of which we still don’t know what Martin offered Stronach. We didn’t need a "government ethics commissioner" to tell us so. Harper recruited Emerson for a Minister position so he could have an MP in the Vancouver area. He did the same in Montréal with Michael Fortier. He was well within his right to do so and that’s nothing that can be held against him, or Mr. Emerson for that matter. While I believe Emerson should have run for re-election in respect for his constituents, he does not HAVE to as no law that I’m aware of states that as an obligation.
According to the press, Shapiro kept himself to Emerson’s explanations that he believed he’d serve his community better as a minister and decided not to carry out any blame.
Yeah, like I’m going to buy THAT.
i imagine you threw away the other post you prepared titled “liberal appointed ethics commisioner crys foul over emerson defection” you can’t have it both ways bub.
Comment by davidson — March 22, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
Davidson,
You have the right to believe whatever you want. But it does not make it true.
You know what? I don’t write posts in advance. And I certainly wouldn’t care to write two posts in advance, that would take way too much time! Remember, this is a hobby, not my job. I write what I think, right then there on the spot and about what others think when I agree with them. I am not trying to have it both ways. If you read my post and the earlier one mentioned in this post, you will see that I am quite consistent with myself. To me, Shapiro’s “change of heart” decision looks fishy at best, and that’s it.
You are lending me bad intentions, and that’s not very nice of you, considering you actually have no way of knowing what I really think but to read what I wrote.
The fact IS, after all, that Shapiro didn’t even budge when Stronach switched. Why would he care about Emerson’s switch? He has NO REASON to care more than he had with Stronach.
Comment by Xavier R. Dubé — March 23, 2006 @ 12:43 am