Rathgeber and Warawa Sitting in a Tree

Interesting development in the House of Commons.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has suffered another blow as a Tory MP quit the Conservative caucus Wednesday night, decrying the Conservatives’ lack of progress on open government.

Alberta MP Brent Rathgeber made public his decision on Twitter, saying he had informed the board of directors for his riding association and the Speaker of the Commons that he had resigned from the Conservative caucus.

“My decision to resign from the Caucus is because of the Government’s lack of commitment to transparency and open government,” he announced on Twitter.

Rathgeber was first elected MP for the Edmonton-St. Albert riding in 2008 and then re-elected in 2011.

Immediately-- and rather hilariously -- there was a call for Rathgeber to step down from the PMO.

Harper’s office reacted quickly, saying that Rathgeber should face the voters again.

“The people of Edmonton-St. Albert elected a Conservative member of Parliament. Mr. Rathgeber should resign and run in a byelection,” Harper aide Andrew MacDougall said in his own Twitter posting.

This was not the position the Conservatives took, however, when former Liberal MPs David Emerson, Wajid Khan and Joe Comuzzi defected to the government party over the past few years.

Frankly, DJ! doesn't give a rat's ass over one Contempt Party member's finding his 'nads, but there was this intriguing -- and quick -- reaction.

@brentrathgeber Brent, you are a man of integrity and will be missed.

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) June 6, 2013

Yep, that's our Mark Warawa, he of Warawa's Wank and he who got miffed enough at his own party to at least float the notion of a Backbench Spring.

Now that he has seen how it's done, might he follow Rathgeber's trailblazing lead and quit the party?

And might some of the one hundred anti-choice CON MPs join him?

We live in hope of an implosion.

ADDED: Rathgeber in his own words.

UPDATE: List of eight CONs who have 'bucked' the party. How many do they need to lose to get back into minority status? Six? Come on, boys, just how much do you care about those fetuses?

Divide the Right: Fetal Gore Porn Gang Targets Harper

Woo-hoo!.

From the Fetal Gore Tour nutters:

Anti-Abortion Face-Off with Stephen Harper

Postcards with Aborted Fetus Images Alongside Harper Images Go to Constituents

Calgary, AB. Starting today, a group of anti-abortion activists will circulate postcards with images of Prime Minister Stephen Harper next to bloody, graphic pictures of late-term aborted children to homes in Harper’s constituency.  Harper is the first of five politicians the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) says it will make “Face the Children”—the name of its new project.  The group plans to distribute 250,000 postcards in the five ridings by summer’s end.

You can see the postcard at the link.

They are keeping mum on the other politicians they will target.

This is a beauty lose-lose for Herr Harper.

Keep It Simple: Commit Math

Now, this has gotta sting, coming as it does from former senior advisor to Heil Harper, Keith Beardsley.

Fiscal responsibility has been the hallmark of the Harper government from day one. It's therefore quite interesting to see in year seven of his reign that the opposition is focused on trying to destroy the credibility the Tories have on that front. It's a good strategy on their part, enabled by some help from the government side.

He cites Scott Brison's jibe about each Economic Action Scam ad on Hockey Night in Canada representing the cost of the federal contribution to 32 summer student jobs.

Beardsley notes:

Simple stuff, but it resonates with Canadian families struggling to get their kids through university.

Yes, that resonates with Canadians with kids, but how about something that will resonate with all of us?

I did some math. One ad spot costs $95,000. The average yearly Old Age Supplement is a paltry $6,180.

Ergo, one EAScam ad = 15.3 yearly pensions.

In our ongoing quest to Divide the Right, it's time to bang the fiscal wastebin a little harder.

The other day I blogged about just two items: the mystery billions spent on consultants and the Economic Action Scam ads.

On Twitter, I asked my good friend Connie what her members think of such waste and unaccountability.

She obliged and started a thread at the Freaks with a link to my blogpost.

Embarrassing - hardcore leftists calling CPC on fiscal waste

by Connie Fournier » 05/ 09/ 13 11:23 am

With the CPC Convention coming up really soon, it's a good time for us to take an honest look at how the majority CPC government has been performing so far.

When the far, far left is calling the government on fiscal waste, I think we need to, at least, check it out.

What do y'all think?

It didn't get much response. But hey, I'm trying and Connie is willing.

Harper is fucked on the so-con file and he knows it as Chantal Hébert points out.

And as a commenter there observes, the base is finally getting it too.

For all these years Harper's worked on the theory the "base" of his party isn't too bright, and it's taken the base this long to figure it out - which pretty much speaks for itself.

Scott Brison is a smart feller. So is Keith Beardsley. Let's help them out. Commit more math!

ADDED: Here's another unit of measurement: $3,000 a day for CON media monitoring. Two days = 1 average OAS pension.

Divide the Right: Election Notes

Docter McVety is stamping his little feet again.

Stephen Harper’s refusal to reopen the abortion debate risks suppressing the Conservative vote, a leading voice of Canadian social conservatism says.

“There is just no energy out there,” Charles McVety, the evangelic leader and Christian activist, said in an interview. “Frankly, my fear for Stephen Harper is that being so overt standing against the pro-lifers, he risks not motivating Conservative voters.”

Mr. McVety noted the Conservatives lost 160,000 votes between the 2006 and 2008 elections. He blames Mr. Harper’s decision just before the 2008 campaign to block Conservative MP Ken Epps’s private member’s bill that would have made it a separate offence for killing a fetus when a pregnant woman was murdered.

And they haven't forgotten this session's failed sneaky abortion recriminalization attempt either, viz this thread at the Freaks.

So-cons are finally wising up.

Well, not all of them. A new thread over there has my FB friend Connie wondering about REAL Women and Canada Family Action.

So, why are these socon organizations pimping for Stephen Harper? Why are they are ignoring the fact that the Christian Heritage Party welcomes social conservatives, and that Stephen Harper keeps kicking them in the teeth?

Has someone promised them something? Do they know something the rest of us don't know? Or, do they just have masochistic tendencies? I'd love to know the answer to that.

It is confusing. One -- albeit MASSIVE -- force is chiding Harper, two other pretty powerful groups are backing him.

Hmmm. Christo-Fascists, masochism, hair shirts, self-flagellation. Connie may be onto something there.

(I've been a bad bunny. In the comments on the Globe piece, I've posted a link to the Christian Heritage Party a couple of times. Just doing my bit for strategic voting.)

So-Conneds = Spent Force

We're not doing our happy dance quite yet, but the faaaar right might well be wising the fuck up.

Today, the National Post has an article titled 'Social conservatives watch campaign from sidelines'.

Stephen Harper's promise Monday that a Tory majority would not open the debate on abortion or gay marriage is likely the final proof that social conservatives have become a spent political force in national politics, observers say.

"We're now just seen as eccentric," said Link Byfield, a long-time social conservative activist and current provincial candidate for the Wildrose Party in Alberta. "I understand why political people avoid these topics. Politicians are not there to be imaginative or perceptive; they're there to be popular. Whatever makes people angry they're going to avoid.

"Harper has made it abundantly and compellingly clear that the social conservative agenda is not to be contemplated in his government and not to be advocated or advanced. And he will have come to this conclusion because he has seen it necessary to get centre voters. As long as he's leader that will remain the case."

'Spent political force'. 'Eccentric'. Lovely words, yes?

The so-conneds have finally had it. Mind, Harper played them like a bunch of banjos for quite a while, repeating the mantra 'Next year in Majorityland'.

Mr. Byfield said Mr. Harper concluded early on that the social conservatives would stay with him because they had no other choice in the political landscape -and if they did not they would not jump to other national parties. The Prime Minister then made it clear to his MPs that they were not to raise these issues, he added.

They sucked up that KoolAid long enough, it seems.

They're pissed.

Here are two threads at the Freaks in which the painfully obvious manifests itself to the painfully oblivious. This one, on 'not even in MajorityLand will we revisit abortion and equal marriage' and an older one I've linked to before on Harper's hidden agenda.

There may not be a lot of them, but they're loud. They're sitting on their wallets, their hands, and voting fringe or spoiling ballots.

They're talking about a new Reform Party. They're talking about ousting PMSHhithead ASAP.

Woo-hoo!

(One 'woo-hoo' does not a happy dance make. I'm still très nervous.)

Harper Losing teh Base?

Oh dear. Strong language from Blob Blogging Wingnut.

Stevie Peevie losing fetus fetishists and free speechers.

Happy days for the FringeNuts.

Harpo's 'Hidden Agenda' from Far Right POV

For today's instalment of DJ!'s effort to divide the right, we present this thread at the Freaks started by my Facebook friend Connie: Does Stephen Harper Have a Hidden Agenda?

It seems to me that many conservatives are betting everything on their hope that Stephen Harper really does have a "Hidden Agenda".

Social conservatives have been told by Harper repeatedly that he won't even let Members of Parliament debate the issue of abortion while he is Prime Minister, yet they are planning to dutifully march to the polls on May 2nd and cast their vote for him in hopes that he is lying.

Free speechers have seen this government, on their own initiative, introduce legislation that would eviscerate our online privacy and freedom of speech. The CPC appointed Jennifer Lynch as head of the CHRC, where she launched a full-out attack on free speech, and the Conservative Justice Minister did nothing to rein her in. Yet, many free speechers figure Harper had "no choice" but to do these things because he has a minority government. Somehow, if he has unlimited power, they think he will stop taking our rights away, so they are going to vote for him, too.

Some fiscal conservatives are willing to gamble their prosperity on the hope that bank bailouts and wasteful spending by the Harper government were simply a way to lull their opposition into thinking that the CPC was not "scary", and that their threatened government attacks on the oil sands, and their seeming acceptance of the global warming farce was just play-acting. These fiscons will do their duty on May 2nd, too, and vote for Stephen Harper strictly on the belief that the past six years have been a lie.

I am going to propose something radical here. There is no "Hidden Agenda". There never has been, and there never will be! Whatever Stephen Harper has done in the past that he sees as instrumental in winning him his majority, he will continue to do in the future. There will be no change of heart, no ripping off of the shirt to reveal the caped conservative superhero.

If you are not happy with the performance of Stephen Harper over the past six years, don't vote for him unless you are content to see him behave exactly the same for the next five.

Conservatives are normally very logical people, so I find it appalling that, over an over again, they go back and vote for people who are promising the OPPOSITE of what they want!

There is a Bible verse in Matthew that says, "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."

Stephen Harper has squandered the past six years. If anything, Canada is less conservative now than when he started. We have seen how he has handled the "little" power of a minority government, so we know exactly how he will handle "much".

Think about it.

Isn't clear thinking from the Right bracing?

Several of the Freaks agree with her.

Several Blogging Tories have their knickers in knots over this clever ad.



I got to wondering -- is Tim Hudak a fetus fetishist?

I hit the google and it seems the jury is out.

This Catlick site notes:

in 1995 and 1999, Hudak signed a CLC [Campaign Life Coalition] questionnaire, with the organization rating him “pro-life with exceptions.”

This source says that Jason Kenney thinks so.

He supported Tim Hudak in the Ontario provincial race, telling colleagues Hudak was reliably pro-life.

(But consider the source -- Kenney, I mean.)

LifeShite more recently:

Hudak has however been a great disappointment for pro-life, pro-family Ontarians who had originally expected the MPP to stand up for life and family since his first election win under the Harris regime.

In his recent party leadership campaign, Hudak, consistent with his past performance, refused to announce a stand on pro-life issues.

Ah, the old bob-and-weave.

Well, inquiring minds want to know. Is he or isn't he a proliar?

Because in Ontario, fetus fetishists can always go with the Family Coalition Party.

Zow. In 1990, they polled 2.7% of the popular vote. Sadly, in recent elections, they've sunk by 2/3 to 0.8%.

DJ! just doing its humble bit to help divide the right.

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

Resistance Is Not Futile!

In another episode of DJ! cheers 'Dividing the Right' or, DJ! visits Freak Dominion so you don't have to, the Freaks are discussing Stevie Spiteful's convo with Peter Man's Bridge in two threads.

One is a general discussion in which Stevie Peevie gets called a socialist, an anti-Conservative, and -- what's really gotta hurt -- a Lieberal.

Admittedly, some there think he's just dreamy. It's the speechies and fetus fetishists who are really pissed.

The other, titled Harper on KILLLING BABIES (caps theirs), more of the same sentiment is expressed.

My Facebook friend Connie WINS the thread with:

I will vote CHP, Libertarian, or spoil my ballot if neither of those option exist. I will NOT send another body to Ottawa to join Harper's borg.

Yeeheehee.

Let's make it a meme!




ADDED: You go, girl.

Harper could throw us all in his nice shiny new prison cells and some of you would say, "Just be patient until he has a majority".

Fantino and Dividing the Right

OK, depending on how one looks at it, it could be called 'far left and far right working together' or 'divide the right', but the Freaks are seriously pissed about Fantino's cabinet job.

Here's my Facebook friend Connie:

I'm willing to strike a deal with the opposition. If they bring down the government, I won't campaign, finance, or vote Conservative.

Here's a like-minded Freak:

I arrived to your same conclusion, a long time ago. I think I would be specially important to target 905 ridings , where the CPC has some red tories in some cases and in others people without spine to stand up to Harper.

I would suggest in those areas in which the CPC vote is close to that of the Liberals, one should hold their noses and vote for their opposition.

This would be not so much about voting against the CPC, but more like a lesson and a price to pay for departing from social and fiscal conservatisme.

That's all it would take. No campaigning, financing, or voting from the so-conneds.

Simple.

Yo! Fucking Liberals ®! You paying attention? There's electoral gold in and around Toronto and elsewhere. Exploit it.

You're welcome.

Left Meets Right. Again.

Zow! My Facebook friend Connie really really really doesn't like rookie MP Julian Fantino.

Fantino is a scumbag. I would vote for Pierre Trudeau himself before I would mark an X for that piece of work. Why do the Conservatives think running him is a good plan???

That's some strong language from a so-con.

In related news, Julie comes out from wherever they stashed him during the campaign to whinge.

Mr. Fantino accuses Mr. Trudeau of taking the information out of context, noting that at one time in Ontario more than 40,000 criminal cases were thrown out because of the “justice delayed is justice denied” section of the Charter.

“I mean these are serious, serious issues and I found it quite distressing really that Justin Trudeau would be trotted out to misrepresent what I said and take it out of context. It was an Academy Award performance.”

“You know what, here’s me with 42 years of working night shifts and facing people with loaded guns and dealing with murderers and rapists ... and I get a lecture from a newbie. C’mon.”

As always, pugnacious and WRONG.

Who's the newbie, asshole?

(I guess it's 'Julie, Julie, Julie Day' here at DAMMIT!)

ADDED: It's Fantino Day at Twitter. Somebody started the game 'Julian Fantino is so tough that. . . ' Fun stuff.

More Conservatives Against Fantino

In DJ!'s ongoing campaign to help divide the right, this is heartwarming.

The Freaks are discussing the Vaughan by-election. It seems they don't like Julian Fantino much.

Fabulous Fred said:

It is the duty of all good conservatives in Vaughn to vote liberal.

The message must be delivered to Harper's ivory tower that only genuine bona fide conservatism is palatable. If Fauntino wins it open the flood gate for disgruntled Dippers and Liebrals to run as CPC candidates without ever altering their political beliefs one iota.

Yeah, because authoritarian, homophobic Fantino is just another soshialist in cunning disguise.

Ah well, who cares really? The Freaks can join the original Conservatives Against Fantino with our blessings and good wishes.

BONUS: Isn't this special?

Meeting Conservative Julian Fantino last month on the hustings for the upcoming Vaughan by-election didn't go as Liberal Tony Genco expected. He'd imagined pleasantries between competing candidates.

Not quite.

“I gave him my best wishes,” Genco told the Star, “and he told me some of my signs were too close to his campaign headquarters so he'd had his people take them down.”

“I was totally surprised,” said Genco. “I asked him if he would please give them back — they're expensive, you know — but he didn't respond.”

Genco apparently never did get his signs back — an example, according to his critics, of the arrogance of a former top cop who's used to doing what he pleases.

Taking a walk on the Dark Side. . .

To see if/how the G20 insanity is still in play.

The story seems to have dropped off the radar at Blithering Tories (CC, we miss you), except for a little smirking over McGuilty's taking some heat from the left.

Different story at Free Dominion. There are three current threads on G20 policing. And while there is the expected 'club the dirty hippies like baby seals' stuff (somebody actually said that, not at the Freaks, but in the comments on a CBC story), there are some surprisingly sensible comments. Or, it could just be the group's proclivity for conspiracy theories and/or distrust of govmint.

In 'Police Provocateurs at all G8 Events', my pal Connie responds to Madrod.

Madrod: To my mind, the Toronto Police Chief has been trying to equate in peoples minds that legit protesters are in the same league as terrorists and anarchists.

Connie: So have a lot of people here.

In 'Black Bloc/Black Ops at the G20', they are speculating whether all or only some of the window-smashers and cop-car-torchers were cops.

Things get really heated in 'More T.O. Cops as Anarchists, Communists & Rapists'. There is some serious cop-bashing going on.

One poster quotes in full a letter sent to Mark Steyn, but I'll save you the click and do it too.

Mark, I live a few blocks from the mayhem we saw a few days ago in Toronto. I’m delighted the police finally clamped down on the criminals, but the optics of last Saturday were a disaster. After I watched on TV the outrageous vandalism of the criminals, with the police— vast hordes of them— standing by, I phoned the Toronto PD to lay a complaint about their astonishing stand down. From start to finish (five calls in about ten minutes) I was treated with the utmost contempt and unprofessionalism by “Toronto’s Finest”. My interactions were reasonable and courteous, though firm.

Here’s what happened:

1) I called; the officer gave me her badge number and said she had no idea about what was happening on the streets. I told her of burning police cruisers and violence, and she claimed to have no clue about this. I said I was very pro-police, but was appalled by their lack of action. I told the officer, who continued to claim ignorance of the situation, that this would be a PR disaster for the police. I then asked how I’d lay a complaint. I was given the phone number of the complaints department.

2) I called the number. The voice mail box, for a “Beverley Picard”, not identified as a police officer, was full. I phoned again. Same thing.

3) I called the number again. I did not get the badge number of the person who answered. I explained that I seemed to have a wrong number for the “complaints department”. Then, with no explanation offered to me for the number I’d been given, this person simply, electronically, passed me on to a line at 52 Division (police headquarters).

4) I repeated my support for the police and my complaint about them standing by while their own cruisers were on fire and vandals were openly damaging property with no arrests. “Oh no,” said the woman on the other end of the phone. “Yes, police cruisers are burning while the police watch,” I said. “OH NO,” said the woman on the line. I then said, “I get the impression that you’re not being serious here. I think, perhaps, you’re being sarcastic.” She hung up on me!

5) Back to the original number. Another officer answered and was sorry for my troubles. When I said I paid taxes to be “served and protected,” she said, “I pay taxes too.” She then informed me that my original contact didn’t exist. “Perhaps you wrote the badge number down incorrectly,” she suggested. In fact, this officer actually said there was no “complaints department” number, and that I should get in touch with my MP or with 52 Division in person after the G20 is over. (Right… as if I think dealing face to face with such do-nothings and ho-hum enablers would accomplish anything.)

6) I then tried Chief Blair’s phone number. The phone rang and rang. Then there was a click. Then there was the dial tone again...

“Toronto’s Finest”? My reasonable interaction with these people, with its multiple non-sequiturs and contradictions, leads me to think the police are cretins: it was like interacting with the Red Queen in Wonderland. Yes, the police were under pressure, but it seems that I, a concerned, supportive citizen, was given the royal dismissive run-around by these four seemingly unengaged women. So much for “To Serve and Protect”!

So this is the new, unimproved way our society deals with thugs and bullies in all public places: make things safe for the bullies. Figuratively declaw and demean all competent adults responsible for the well being of the well behaved, while pussy-footing around in order to protect the rights of the bad guy. The rights of the good guys? You must be joking!

(name withheld)
Toronto, Ontario

Also from comments at CBC, a former staunch supporter of police said s/he started to change her/his mind over the Robert Dziekanski case and that recent events have sealed the deal.

So. Is another front developing in our ongoing campaign to Divide the Right? This time a schism between lawnorder (as JJ styles it) cons and libertarian cons?

We at DJ! will try our darnedest to help.

Of course, cops will always have their groupies. For a giggle, check out the Support for the TPS and G20 Security Officers Facebook group, with at last peek 2268 members.

In contrast, the FB group demanding a public inquiry will hit 39,000 members pretty soon, probably within the hour.

Divide the Right!

Citing two new developments, the gloriously aptly self-dubbed Dodo whines:

I am not happy today with PM Harper and the Conservative govt. NOT AT ALL.

The issues?

Stevie Peevie kissing Mooslim butt and the billion dollar G8/G20 security boondoggle.

Yay! With today's declaration of war on the Cons over the Intertoobz by my Facebook friend Connie, more issues to help divide the right!

A Very Exclusive Club

Just the two of us.

She invited me. But we're not allowed to bash Harper over any other issues there. I don't know if I will be able to restrain myself. My membership may be short-lived.

More So Conned Reaction

Or, 'Another Instalment of DJ! Visits the Freaks So You Don't Have To'.

It's still early days for measuring the so-conned reaction to Stevie Peevie's steel-toed boot to their forced-pregnancy delusion, but it seems to me there are -- so far -- three identifiable types.

First, the over-reacting emotional dimbulb, example here being Cecilia:

Do you think Harper has secret prolife plan? He doesn't. Harper is a pro abortion zealot. He'll never let any type of abortion legislation pass while he's on watch. Harper doesn't give a damn about a woman who has been "coerced" into ending her pregnancy.

Harper has to go.

Um. OK. (I don't think Cecilia understands the proper use of sarcasm/scare quotation marks. But then, there's sooo much she doesn't understand, isn't there?)

Next, the reality-challenged ideologue, represented here by our old pal Mr Kicking Abortion's Ass/Sock-Tube Holocaust Survivor, Pacheco:

In my opinion, we are putting too much emphasis on what Harper thinks.

Politicians don't lead, they react and follow. So why take what they say too seriously?

Harper will bend when the underlying politics of the question go against him. And that is going to come with time. Harper is a passing leader. He won't be the guy who has to really face this issue. It will be the next leader.

I swear that I have never heard the phrase "this debate is over" by so many of our opponents. It's quite comical, not unlike the "unqualified support" management gives to a hockey coach before he gets the boot.

Besides, the otherside is confusing the numbers with political will. They are assuming that one correlates with the other. The fact is that the one-third who are pro-life have more gravitas than the weak kneed pro-aborts. Believe me, if the momentum shifts significantly, many of the so-called "women's right to choose" brigade will go silent when the politics of the question shift. Don't kid yourself. The key is in the momentum.

As the momentum shifts so do politicians. Very few are principled. And frankly, we have more principled pro-life politicians in power than we do "principled" pro-aborters. And that's the key factor here.

So not worry, the march for life continues with or without Harper who will still have to give a full accounting to God for his actions -- some of that "accountability" he likes to talk about -- except this kind of accountability has eternal consequences.

So, the anti-abortioneers have 'principles', time, and Gord on their side, while we 'pro-aborts' have only superior numbers of sane people. OK, works for me. (Pacheco does understand the correct use of quotation marks.)

Then there's yesterday's example: the once-hopeful now totally pissed-off, as represented by my Facebook friend Connie.

The ideologues are useless to DJ!'s evul scheme to divide the right. We'll just have to wait for them to die off.

But maybe we can work with the dimbulbs and the pissed-off.

I'm thinking a concerted chorus of 'nyah-nyah -- how's that "Waiting on a Majority Thingy" working out for ya?' might help our cause.

No one likes to be mocked, of course, but it may work differently on the two groups. The emotional dimbulbs might get whipped out of shape enough to vote for the far-far-right christianist parties. Whereas the pissed-off may just become cripplingly depressed over their painful and embarrassing realization of being strung along for so long and stay home.

Now, we at DJ! would never ever suggest trolling of any kind, but a good place to er, gauge how the Mock the Right Campaign is going over might be this Facebook group, Canadian So Cons. From the info page:

We are constantly told that Canada is a socially liberal country, and that social conservatives do not have a place in the public square.

Well, they sure do! Membership in the group numbers a whopping 21! Including many of our fave fetus fetishists like SUZY ALL-CAPS.

Another place to um, monitor reaction might be Bruinooge's Facebook group set up to support his 'coerced abortion' private member's bill.

Mock the Right! It's fun and it might actually do some good!

UPDATE: The conversation at the Freaks continues. Our evul plan is working!

Bruinooge's Bill Divides the Right

In DJ!'s ongoing effort to divide the right, Bruinooge's private member's bill, C-510, or the Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along Bill (OK, it's not as good as Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill, but we're working on it) may be a boon.

Let's have a look at what the so-conned are saying.

First, LifeShite appears to think that if they keep asking the same question, they'll get an answer they like.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, refused today to say whether the PM would allow a free vote in his party on the recently-tabled private members bill from Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge that seeks to protect women from coercive abortions.

Asked by LifeSiteNews (LSN) whether there would be a free vote, Soudas responded that “the government's policy is that we will not initiate or support legislation that reopens the debate on abortion.”

“That's been the consistent policy of this government and this Prime Minister since he took the position and since he was leader of the opposition,” he added. “The government will not be supporting this piece of legislation.”

Asked again, Soudas reiterated, “Like I said, the government will not be supporting this piece of legislation because we do not support reopening the debate on abortion.”

LSN asked “So that means no [free vote]?” and Soudas said again: “The government will not be supporting this piece of legislation.”

Over at Catholic Insight, famous frothing fetus fetishist, Alphonse de Valk, has really got his panties in a twist:

We already know that under Marxist/atheist Gilles Duceppe the Bloc Quebecois is unfit to govern. The New Democratic Party has long since earned the title The New Death Party because of its 45-year-long commitment to killing babies. The Green Party is all in favour of reducing the earth’s population one way or another. The Liberal party under agnostics Ignatieff, Rae and Dion is set to kill as many babies as possible, preferably in Africa and Asia, while carrying on the Trudeau tradition at home. That party still has three or four MP’s who think otherwise but they are locked into the wrong party.

That leaves the Conservatives whose pro-life members must get ready to rise up against Stephen Harper.

Oooh, rise up! Against Stephen Harper! Yay!

No Apologies got the same answer from different spokesthingy, with an added kicker (emphasis mine):

The Prime Minister’s Office was quick, however, to squelch any thought Bruinooge’s bill might be acceptable. “The government will not support the bill,” Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall said in an interview. “Our Conservative government will not initiate or support any legislation that opens the abortion debate.”

(snip)

MacDougall said the government would demonstrate its opposition at the time of any vote by having cabinet ministers vote against it.

Obviously, the only choice (snerk) left for rabid fetus fetishists is the Christian Heritage Party and they've got ambitions!

Christian Heritage Party leader eyes Tory votes
The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) is hoping be to the Tories what the Green party has been to the Grits.

CHP Leader Jim Hnatiuk believes the Greens on the left have siphoned votes from the Liberals in the last couple of federal elections — and his party intends to mirror that success on the right against the Conservatives.

To get the ball rolling on the monumental task, Hnatiuk is on a Western tour that stops in Kamloops on Saturday, April 17.

Hey, they got nowhere to go but up -- from 0.19% of the popular vote last two times out.

And who wouldn't want to vote for a party whose (albeit unofficial) colour is -- wait for it -- PUCE? (I just looked 'puce' up to be sure. Yup, means 'flea-coloured'.)


ADDED BONUS: Go read pale at A Creative Revolution.

MORE BONUS: Online poll. Link supplied by Roddy himself at the FB page. You know what to do.

Help Divide the Right

As I grow increasingly gloomy about politics in Canada, I must say I'm mightily enjoying the ReThuglican meltdown in the Excited States. And the news just gets worse for the Republican National Committee.

The head of an influential social conservative organization urged members and supporters Wednesday to stop donating to the Republican National Committee and instead contribute to its own coffers or to candidates with like-minded goals.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, made the plea in his "Washington Update" column posted on the organization's Web site following the revelation that the RNC paid for a night out at a risque Hollywood nightclub.

"I've hinted at this before, but now I am saying it -- don't give money to the RNC," Perkins said in his column. "If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values.

"Better yet, become a member of FRC Action and learn about the benefits it offers, including participating in the FRC Action PAC which can support candidates who will advance faith, family and freedom," he said.

Perkins is the latest social conservative leader to openly criticize RNC Chairman Michael Steele for allowing the controversial expenditure to happen under his watch.

Don't give the RNC money. Give it to this group.

So far, the new soft-money group, American Crossroads, has received commitments of almost $30 million and is seeking to raise a total of some $60 million to help dozens of Senate and House incumbents and challengers this fall, say three sources familiar with the new 527. In contrast, at the start of January, the Republican National Committee had only $8.4 million in the bank compared with the $22.8 million it had on had a year earlier when Steele was elected chairman.

So, I was wondering: how can I help that sort of move here?

Oh. Look: Rural Alberta is starting to turn on Progressive Conservatives.

So now the Highwoods constituency association last week sent a letter to the PC party head quarters accusing the government of "nearing the precipice of moral insolvency to govern."

Yowzer! That's strong language. (And it's also, alas, provincial. And the disgruntled will probably support Wild Rose Alliance, a party described as 'right of Attila the Hun'.)

Nonetheless, dirty laundry is being aired. And, even better, Alberta Cons are getting hit in the pocketbook too.

This is also evident as while the Party continued to make the highest amount of donations from corporations their membership renewals fell precipitously by over $58,000. When your party memberships only cost $5 a year it means that number is fairly alarming.

Alarming? Yee-haw!

Seems to me that humble (ahem) bloggers can help divide the right.

From hanging out at Free Dominion, I've learned that both the fiscally conservative and socially conservative are not happy with Stevie Peevie. For the former, he's spending way too much money, and for the second, he's not doing anything about their issues -- abortion and same-sex marriage.

I don't think the fiscal conservatives can be persuaded in any great numbers to vote for the evul tax-and-spend Liberals -- but maybe for the Greenies? I leave this to wonkier wonks than I.

But maybe the so-cons can be cajoled into at least keeping their chequebooks shut and staying away from the polls.

And there's another group -- libertarians. When it sinks in with them that their sons and daughters -- or themselves -- will get a mandatory six-month minimum prison sentence for as little as six pot plants, they may well stay home too.

So, let's get to work, progressive bloggers! In our blogs and in our lives, let's harp on keep pointing out that Stevie Peevie will NEVER reopen the abortion debate and that responsible adult taxpayers who get caught smoking a little recreational weed WILL go to prison.