Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Dept. of protesting way too much

by Paul Wells on Monday, July 12, 2010 9:27am - 0 Comments

This is farcical.

“…non-partisanship and constitutional knowledge were key… ‘A blatant partisan would not have made it’… ‘The members were guided by one key question…: “Will the next Governor General be able to serve without partisanship?”‘…When asked why the Prime Minister would include the directive about partisanship, Mr. Soudas replied that it is because the position is non-partisan…Ned Franks, who was not consulted, said that by raising the issue of partisanship, the government gave the committee a crucial understanding that candidates with strong partisan ties would be discouraged…’My impression is that the committee would probably consider strong previous partisanship as a … handicap’…”

Does anybody else feel a sudden urge to check their wallets? Now here’s the fun thing. After repeating eight times the phoned-in claim that this is all about non-partisanship, the Globe cheerfully lists — for the second time in three days — the members of the super-non-super-anti-don’t-even-think-about-partisanship committee without lifting a finger to tell us about them.

Three minutes’ googling would tell you Chris Manfredi and Rainer Knopff have built long and fruitful careers drinking each other’s intellectual bathwater and that, while Manfredi’s “lessons on the power of the courts and judicial appointments were constantly helpful” to Ian Brodie, he didn’t put his signature after Ted Morton’s and Stephen Harper’s on the Alberta firewall letter. But Knopff did.

Here’s Manfredi testifying before a Commons committee on Supreme Court appointments — not the same, but germane. He tosses cold water on the notion that such appointments could ever be non-political, arguing instead for transparency in the selection process.

To me, none of this delegitimizes any aspect of the process that led to David Johnston’s selection. I sort of figured a Conservative prime minister would turn to Conservatives in his choice of an important appointment. The people on the selection committee weren’t staring loons; those are all on the Rights and Democracy board. But shooing Dimitri Soudas away while turning to Rainer Knoppf is a distinction without a difference, and a Sunday devoted to extravagant claims of non-partisanship is a Sunday spent trying desperately to change the channel from one of the most disgusting editorial endorsements of the past 30 years. And it worked a charm, didn’t it.

Reporters aren’t actually required to be stenographers when writing about all this.

Bookmark and Share
  • Anon 001

    So, the question to Soudas should be on the selection process for the new senator, "Salma, The Realtor."

    Why does non-partisanship not extend into the Senate?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PeteTong PeteTong

      I would like to see more independents in the Senate too.

    • Bob

      The Senate has always been a PARTISAN institution. It's just also happens to be an institution where party discipline doesn't mean much.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

        Unless you are the Conservatives. Has there been a government bill that they haven't rubber stamped?

        • Bob

          Any significant bills the Senate ever fails to rubber stamp?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

            Absolutely. For one huge example, when the Federal Accountability Act was rushed through the anemic House, it had a whole bunch of major flaws and outright errors. The Senate amended a provision that would have required the personal information (home phone and address) of every person working at a lobby firm to be publicly disclosed. There were also outright errors like references to section numbers that did not exist or schedules that were not planned.

            In defending the Senate from Harper's lies, one senator (Conservative Anne Cools maybe?) cited many significant Chretien laws the Liberal majority in the Senate amended.

            I was always indifferent to the Senate until lately when I really focused on it and began to understand the good work that they do and the vital role that they play in our democracy. Reform? All in favour of making it even better. But even the Conservative Leader in the Senate, LeBreton, is fed up with Harper and his gratuitous and groundless and ceaseless disparaging the work of the Senate.

          • Bob

            Citing LeBreton proves my original point. The Senate is and always has been "partisan" – but members can act in a way MPs can't and get away with it – less party discipline.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

            I agree with you that the Senate is less prone to party discipline. However, I disagree with you that the current crop of Conservative senators have been showing it. She is speaking out against the PMO but I not aware of any piece of legislation from Harper that the Conservatives have not supported fully. Indeed, they kicked Anne Cools out of the Conservative caucus for voting against the party, something the Liberals have not done.

          • Bob

            I agree with you that I don't want Senators acting like mindless partisans. I disagree that the Senate should not be partisan in the sense of the Conservatives shouldn't appoint Conservatives. It'd be nice if the Conservatives they did choose weren't all drones (some are, though I don't think all of them are).

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

            It would actually be preferable if parties did not appoint their own, at least not exclusively. Harper has appointed close to 30 senators and all of them have been Conservative and are whipped on all votes it seems. By contrast, Martin appointed significant Conservatives to the Senate like Hugh Segal (former leadership candidate) as well as Dippers and independents (and yes as well as lots of Liberals).

            I think there are ways to make it less partisan. I have no idea why there would be a joint Senate-House caucus for any party for example. I would somehow dissolve Senate party caucuses or at least their budgets.

            Ironically, there is a brass gate in the Senate that is there to deliberately, physically and symbolically keep the MPs out of the Senate and similarly one in the House to keep senators, the GG and the Queen out of the House.

            There are very important historical reasons for this that are only slightly less important today.

  • John D

    Rainer Knoppf was on the committee? Damn, that guy is like Ted Morton in a… Uh, he's just like Ted Morton.

    • Bob

      He's co-written a lot with Morton, but no, they're not the same.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/charlesh Charles H.

    Ah, the good ol' Toronto Sun. Glad to see it's keeping up the standards one expects from papers that bear that name.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PeteTong PeteTong

    The sun editorial says Johnston is "CBC clear and bias-free" but I thought I read somewhere that he hosted a CBC tv or radio show?

    It doesn't really matter to me and nobody reads the Sun for political insight anyway.

    • Anon 001

      I think he hosted a show called The Editors on PBS, where Howard Dean was a frequent guest. It was carried by the CBC.

      The SUN editorial staff also obviously don't know that one of Johnston's daughters is a senior political aide to Premier McGuinty.

      But you're right. Nobody reads the SUN for political insight, or any kind of insight really.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

        Overall, I agree with your point, but…

        The SUN editorial staff also obviously don't know that one of Johnston's daughters is a senior political aide to Premier McGuinty.

        So now the employment history of the daughter is bestowed on the resume of the father? No wonder political participation is so low in this country, we're labelling people based on the associations – remember, advisors may not be carded party members – of family members (and friends, if my reading of MSM over the last fifteen years is any indication); I've yet to meet a voter who doesn't balk at the notion that they can't think for themselves.

        • Anon 001

          Well, no, but if they had known that, I'm sure they would have trumpeted it to highlight DearLeader's "non-partisanship."

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            To reiterate Lynn's point, where the daughter is employed has no bearing whatsoever on the father's partisanship or lack thereof. So it would have been idiotic for them to even mention it, whatever the reason.

          • jay

            Would this hold for the spouse of our current GG in the eyes of Sun Media?

          • Anon 001

            It doesn't.

            It is also somewhat silly to believe that family members' partisan affiliations are not inter-related. Ever hear of a Bush running for the Democrats or a Kennedy for the Republicans? Would Ben Mulroney ever run for the Liberals? Would Justin Trudeau ever have a future in the Conservative party?

            Take a look at the dozens of sons/daughters/relatives of current/former MPs at various patronage/political posts in Ottawa, and cross-reference their affiliations. You would be hard-pressed to find a son or a daughter of a current or former Liberal MP working for the Conservative government today, but you'd find many such instances for Conservative MPs. The same would have been true if the Liberals held power.

            So to say that the political affiliation of a father or mother has no bearing on the career prospects of their son or daughter, or vice versa, is not just naive, but bordering on delusional fantasy and, yes, even idiocy.

          • Jan

            Wasn't Layton's father a Conservative? There are people who rebel against their families.

          • Anon 001

            Progressive Conservative, but you're right. Very rare, though.

            Ronald Reagan's older son from his first marriage is another example that I can think of.

            The Asper sons rebelled against their well-known Liberal father and became ultra conservatives. Of course, they turned out to be incompetent morons too, destroying their father's business empire in the process.

            So there are some examples here and there. Political parties are like the mafia in many respects. Trust is everything, and there is no greater guarantor of trust than a blood link.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            You speak as though "idiotic" and "the Sun" are conflicting concepts. Did you read the piece of typing they published?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            You speak as though "idiotic" and "the Sun" are conflicting concepts

            No, I didn't. All I said was "it would have been idiotic for them to even mention it". And it would have been.

            Did you read the piece of typing they published?

            Yes, it was stupid and cretinous.

  • Kelvin

    This post was going well until it swerved into the Whitey GG editorial fiasco.

    Honestly, that editorial was so outlandish that "changing the channel" to preserve the reputation and legitimacy of the GG-designate actually seems like a legitimate act, if the media really is as dumb as to tune to it as the channel in the first place.

    I hope that the press was ignoring that editorial because it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, not because it needed to be docilely steered in a less brain-melting direction.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    The ironic aspect of this, is that minus this transparent farce being shoved down our throats by the PMO and rightwing media, the more I read up about Johnston, the more he looks like a competent selection for GG. But now his appointment is going to become increasingly politicized because of all the silly games Harper and his media minions are playing. Just another example of how Conservatives are most often their own worst enemy.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

    Wow, that's a lot of metaphors and allusions for a Monday morning. I'm going to go have my coffee now, and come back when I can actually parse who's playing the ironic Queen Gertrude in all this mess…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    That's interesting and good to know. Kudos to Wells for shedding light on the side of the story not reported thus far.

  • Anon 001

    .. desperately to change the channel

    They are desperate, but maybe not because of the Sun editorial. Maybe this Johnston "non-partisan" appointment was done to appeal to the "independents," the swing suburbanites, and the moms who would like the brainiac aspect and five-daughters aspect of Johnston.

    Maybe that's what this was, a shout out to the 40 and 50-something college educated Ontario suburbanite moms and pops who tend to think of Harper as an ignorant idiot.

    • http://www.invisiblehand.ca/ The Invisible Hand

      Please provide evidence that "40 and 50-something college educated Ontario suburbanite moms and pops … tend to think of Harper as an ignorant idiot."

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

    So, Mr. Soudas has come out of hiding? I keep seeing his name, but it looks like nobody is trying to serve him anymore…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

    " ….. and a Sunday devoted to extravagant claims of non-partisanship …. "

    Harper et al just seem to be copying Liberal playbook who always claim they are appointing non-partisan people as judges, or to quangos and the like, while they are all major Liberal party donors. However, I was surprised this non-partisan panel picked a technocrat to lead the country, I was hoping for someone more inspiring than a bureaucrat.

    "Reporters aren’t actually required to be stenographers …. "

    Exactly right, Wells. I have long wondered what they teach to people in journo school because this should be one of the lessons but it doesn't seem to be. In fact, it seems journo schools teach people to be entirely credulous and question nothing, which is ass backwards.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

      journo schools teach people to be entirely credulous and question nothing

      It's not quite so simple. Reporters are often not smart enough to know what to question. A lot of the time they fail to question what they agree with. Stuff they don't agree with, that's what they question. This, of course, causes them to to be rather biased. But they simply don't know any better. What they think they know, they never question.

  • Out There

    That Sun editorial is disgusting. There's no other way to put it. I wasn't reading the Sun before this, but now I will actively avoid it forever.

    Johnston seems to be about as qualified for the post of GG as anyone else. I don't know whether he will obediently prorogue on command if necessary, or insist upon an election rather than allow a Liberal/NDP coalition to form a government – or even whether the Conservatives were looking for a GG that would do these things.

    My guess is that the Conservatives genuinely tried to implement a non-partisan approach. But I am beginning to believe this less now that Soudas is activating his fog machine again. Protesting way too much indeed…

  • Dot

    The people on the selection committee weren’t staring loons; those are all on the Rights and Democracy board.

    If I only had a loonie for each playing of the same old toonie…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      You would have less money than you will if you make the conversion later on. I intend to keep writing about Rights and Democracy for as long as its board remains a lamentable farce. You're welcome.

      • Dot

        Ever been a member of a board, or attended any such meetings in any capacity?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

          Yup! You? Oh, and I've lost track: Is the Rights and Democracy story a waste of everyone's time today, or is it the subject of a truly amazing fascination on your own part, which you've never paused to explain to the rest of us?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

            Hey, us policy wonks are right behind you on this one. We've got our breifing notes and mechanical pencils at the ready. Just flash us the go sign, and we're there!

            In seriousness, I appreciate your digging hard on the story. Glad somebody has time and editorial blessing to do so.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

            Any sign of that audit yet, speaking of R&D?

          • Dot

            The fascination is yours. Remember physics – Newton's laws of motion -wasn't that the subject you flunked out of at Western then gave up? I'm sure your groupies don't.
            For every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction?

            After 10 hours , 11 Thumbing Canadians agree with you, 2 disagree with me. A scandal…or simply an apple dropping from the tree

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

        Good. I'm glad you're going to keep it up.

  • Steve M

    So Harper should have put together a more non-partisan committee to select a non-partisan GG?
    But then how would Harper, as partisan a person as you'll meet, be able to fairly select this committee? I know, he can appoint a group of non-partisans to select the members of his non-partisan GG selection committee. But first he'll have to choose a group of non-partisans to select THAT committee.
    It's turtles all the way down, baby.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

    I was beginning to like the image of a non-partisan committee. It was quite amusing how Harper and the PMO were going to such lengths to emphasize how non-partisan the appointment was and how distant from Harper and the PMO the appointment process was.

    It was like they were admitting that Harper and the PMO are incapable of a non-partisan decision, and certainly incapable of a non-partisan appointment.

    Ah well. Another image crushed by actual data from Wells. I guess the solace is that it does prove the point anyway: almost nothing they do is not highly partisan.

  • Emily

    Canada's Brave New World. LOL

  • Aongasha

    Always something wrong isn't there? Nothing good is ever accomplised by this government. Shame. Guess we'll just have to wait for Iggy and the libs – they'll do so much better.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

    As a followup to all of this, the Sun editorial today on Omar Khadr wasn't much better

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

      I'd say it was a conspiracy, but it's likely just a lazy editorialist..

      By the way, "The Lazy Editorialist" is the follow up novel to "The Accidental Tourist". But with more libel law involved.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

        I think Kory got bored and decided to do some editorials for a couple of days.

    • Jan

      David Akin is down there covering the 'legal proceedings' today. It will be interesting how he reports back. Judging from his tweets – the press is more or less being shut out. This will make reporting that he's been treated fairly even more difficult than it already was.

  • CasualObserverator

    The Toronto Sun (all the papers in the SUN chain) are what everyday people read. Call it a disgusting editorial – fine. That's just middle-aged white guy pundit guilt coming through. I should note that the Sun's editorial viewpoint is one that's shared by a great swath of Canadians. (The same Canadians who are sick and tired of, oh, stuff like Human Rights Commissions who agree to hear complaints by people who feel their human rights were abused because they couldn't take their 3 month old baby into a wine bar) Doesn't mean that it's racist – but then this IS the worst time in human history to be a white person in the western world. White guilt combined with political correctness and human rights commissions are truly the toxic stew that comprises the new McCarthyism.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      "…this IS the worst time in human history to be a white person in the western world."

      I'm pretty sure it's not guilt that made that bit kind of jump out. Hey Dan Gardner, are you out there? We got a job for you here. Clean-up in Aisle 2.

      • Casualobserverator

        Oh – so you agree that not being allowed to take a 3 month old baby into a wine bar is a legitimate human rights abuse. Glad we cleared that up. And … yeah, it's white guy guilt. The Sun is simply stating what most people are terrified to say out loud.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

          You don't take hints well. Okay, let me break it down for you. Here's another time when babies in wine bars were the least of some white people's worries.
          http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/gula.html

          That's not the only counterexample I could suggest. It's… it's… it's probably the second-most-obvious 20th-century example of a time when life for white people really sucked. Hint hint.

          • Casualobserverator

            Life for most Canadians regardless of their skin color, racial or religious background basically sucks if they're not in the middle class … the same class where clearly a privileged white dude like you has his butt groove planted firmly, but I digress.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

            Privileged – Wells works for a living. You sound like a very bitter person.

          • casualobserverator

            Privileged: any white person in Canada – this is a no brainer.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

            You're a bitter bigot. Here's a suggestion – if you find it so bad move to a country that has no or very few white people.

            I guess those white folks living in poverty should feel privileged.

            You are a sick, sick person.

        • MostlyCivil

          "this IS the worst time in human history to be a white person in the western world"

          Cut to me, leaning over a short, dome-headed Ezra Levant…
          - Help me, Obi Wann Coulter, you're my only hope!-

          • Casualobserverator

            Hey man .. white people suck… sheesh.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

            Humour transfusion! Stat!

      • http://www.dangardner.ca Dan Gardner

        I'm reasonably confident that it sucked to be a white guy in the Depression, the Somme, the Black Death, and various other points in modern history but such anecdotal observations are far too subjective to meet my exacting evidentiary standards: We need a methodologically sound survey on contemporary white suckage. Call Frank Graves.

        • Casualobserverator

          Frank Graves is too white to do a survey. Actually, surveys and polls only matter to white people so really, your point is moot.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/DZulu Dave Z.

            Someone should call Christian Lander. Stuff White People Like: #134 Surveys

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

            They sure seem to get excited about the census, eh?

          • casualobserverator

            I rest my case. The question is of the three federal parties that aren't trying to break up Canada, which one is the whitest?

    • Jan

      Gee CB – that sounds like the making of an upcomining Sun editorial. Kory will be in touch.

    • John D

      "this IS the worst time in human history to be a white person in the western world"

      AHAHAHAHAHA

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

      "The Toronto Sun (all the papers in the SUN chain) are what everyday people read."

      Gosh. I had no idea there were so very few everday people living in Toronto.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

      Toronto Sun readership demographics differ substantially from the Toronto CMA statistical profile from which the paper draws most of its readership. Sun readers aren't "average" people, unless by "average" you mean more often blue-collar or middle-management, young, and in a middle-income household than the Toronto CMA overall.

      As for your reading of public opinion, you're looking at a mightily skewed sample if you look selectively at readers of a single news source, just as a reading of public opinion based solely on the readers of Maclean's would be flawed.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

        Oh I don't know, between the lefties, the libs and con bots we're pretty well represented….

      • casualobserverator

        You're from Toronto – you have no opinion due to your Toronto-centric sense of entitlement.

  • Matlock

    I think my opinion of the Sun chain is best summed up by this dialogue from PM Jim Hacker from the famous BBC show "Yes, Minister":

    Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

    Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
    Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big ***s.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/CndnRschr CndnRschr

      Canadian adaptation of this classic:

      Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: Macleans is read by people who think they run the country; The Globe and Mail is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Hill Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the National Post is read by people who own the country; The Toronto Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by Toronto; and The Sun is read by people who are in the market for a flat panel TV.

      • D-R

        I think this is the most accurate way to put it.

        Globe & Mail – College/University education
        Toronto Star – Hich School diploma
        Toronto Sun – Dropouts

        • Schooner

          "Toronto Star – Hich School diploma"

          Sun Reader ?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

          What about the NatPost readers then?

          • D-R

            Nobody.

      • Lord Kitchener's Own

        Sun Readers in Toronto are as interested in the big t|its as Sun readers in the UK.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

          Toronto Star: For those who dislike being bothered by Nickelback (not indie)
          Globe/Mail : For those who don't like being bothered by Nickelback fans (too loud)
          NatPost :For those who want their nickel back. (with interest)
          Sun :For those who know it's a dime back, now. (buck a beer!)

      • Lord Kitchener's Own

        It is a truly impressive display of attempting to get every ounce of partisan advantage possible out of a "non-partisan" decision, by partisanly shouting the "non-partisanship" factor from every available hill top.

        It's kinda like making an "anonymous" donation to charity, and then making sure everyone you know tells everyone they know about the big "anonymous" donation you made to charity.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

    He tosses cold water on the notion that such appointments could ever be non-political.

    Reading his opening remarks, I get the impression that he thinks anything shy of an absolute meritocracy is political, and that even a meritocracy could be political because of considerations about who makes the merits.

    With this in mind, I'm inclined to think that he's using the term "political" with a different scope than most of us in the chattering classes.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CndnRschr CndnRschr

    "The people on the selection committee weren’t staring loons; those are all on the Rights and Democracy board. "

    Thanks for the morning belly laugh Paul!

  • JamesHalifax

    Wells……..you are as much of a cynic as I am. (which I admire)

    Everything politicians do is political….but at least in this case, if the new GG is partisan at all……he has the qualifications to make the right decisions. At least he hasn't spent his entire career at the CBC.

    That at least is a bonus…

    • Jan

      The right decision being the right decision for Harper,

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Heavens Mr. Wells – this sounds like Soudas snake oil to me!
    Last time I read a reference to snake oil was yesterday on ABC's This Week round table – when that funster George Will observed that this is exactly what President Obama is peddling!
    I guess politics is just about perspective really – isn't it?
    Actions don't matter!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

    I don't have an issue with Johnsston's appointment, I think he'll probably do as non-partisan a job as anyone else, because I think if you take the role of GG seriously (and I think all GGs have) you do distance yourself from party politics and the spin machines.

    The part that bugs me the most about this, is that saying THIS is a non-partisan appointment eight times leads one to conlcude that the last one wasn't a non-partisan appointment. And that leads one to conclude that the current GG stymied Harper every step of the way by choosing Liberal partisanship over objective decision-making.

    I'm not quite sure what more Harper could possibly have wanted Michaelle Jean to do–who acquiesced to his every request, after all, that he would go so out of his way to tarnish her reputation.

    • sbt

      "And that leads one to conclude that the current GG stymied Harper every step of the way by choosing Liberal partisanship over objective decision-making."

      A bit of a reach, no? If they are doing anything it's taking a pot-shot at the Liberals by implying that they were solely poltically motivated in their selection of governors general. Clarkson and Jean were good governors general but you don't have to be the country's biggest cynic to suspect that the political beneifts of picking them for governor general weighed considerably into the decision to select them.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

        It could be a reach, you are right. Except, if you were politically motivated in selecting a governor general, wouldn't your motivation be to pick a GG who would like as not see things the way you would have them see it?

        Because what other political motivation could there be–unless we are talking about straight rewarding a long-time fundraiser and contributor. Michaelle Jean isn't old enough to be a "long-time fundraiser" like I'm sure the party has, so wouldn't be near the top of the list on that criteria. Plus, older supporters who would have been able to give more over a longer period under the old contribution rules would have been able to give more in donations.

        I have no idea whether Michaelle Jean has ever organized a Liberal fundraiser, or whether she has ever donated to the Liberal Party, just to be clear.

        • john g

          Agree with sbt, if Harper is taking shots here it is at the Liberals and Paul Martin, not at Jean.

          Jean was a partisan appointment. I saw a story once somewhere (which I can't find again by googling unfortunately) that related that Martin basically picked her based on her photograph and told his team, "she's the one, go get her". Her appointment generated a lot of criticism, which Jean, to her credit, was able to rise above with a surprisingly stellar performance. I don't believe for a minute that Jean executed her duties with any degree of partisanship or favoritism towards the Liberals, but I do feel that the process which appointed her (i.e. Martin going through photographs looking for the candidate that had the right "demographic credentials") was flawed.

          So far, the biggest complaint seems to be that Harper was playing politics because even though he asked partisan people for advice, he made a selection that everybody except the Emilys of the world approves of…which is ridiculous.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

            "The Emilys of the world"

            Best line of the day, no offense Emily !

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            Ah, thanks and apologies to sbt for not catching his point. Still, if I were Michaelle Jean I'd feel slighted whether it was directed at me or not.

            Then again, I'm sensitive that way. Presumably she's not.

        • sbt

          "Because what other political motivation could there be–unless we are talking about straight rewarding a long-time fundraiser and contributor."

          Well, if you pick someone from an identifiable group then people of that group tend to identify more with you. It's just natural for that to occur. That's pretty much the goal of Harper's latest Senate pick and picking Jean probably didn't hurt the Liberals with the Haitian community. It's not always about rewarding the party bag-people. Political picks can expand your voter base to the point where you can hold or swing close ridings.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            Well. . . okay . . . I guess that's possible, but you'd sure have to work harder than appoint someone from my former country or my religion or my skin colour or who speaks my mother tongue to earn my vote. That's really kind of depressing that people could be swayed so easily.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

        If they are doing anything it's taking a pot-shot at the Liberals by implying that they were solely poltically motivated in their selection of governors general.

        I think that's exactly what they're attempting to do, paint the Liberals as entirely politically motivated and make themselves look like principled saints.

        It bugs me that this sort of thing is considered acceptable politics, to disguise yourself as grandma when at night you bay at the moon like the rest of the pack.

    • s_c_f

      I don't think he had an issue with Jean when it came to constitutional questions. I think he might have disliked her penchant for acting like a politician herself, acting like an agent of the government and promoting an agenda of her own.

      Also, I agree with john g above that it may have been the way that she was appointed that he did not like. I've always wondered how she was qualified to be GG, being a newscaster with no particular set of relevant experience, but I think overall she performed the duties well.

From Macleans