And now that the good citizens of Wankerville have had the time to put forth their best defenses, it's time to point out that they are all, in fact, totally full of shit, and we can find all the proof we need in one wanker-infested web page here. One-stop shopping, as it were.
Let's first deal with pathological liar and occasional chew toy Bill Strong, who writes:
I think we should be mature enought to look at these appointments and decide that they were made with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the country. And that they were consistent with what Stephen Harper said before and during the campaign.
This doesn't so much represent an argument as much as it shows that Strong is as much of an asshole as ever. See, if you look at these appointments and agree with Bill that they're in the "best interests of the country", then you (like he, I'm assuming) are being "mature." If you don't see things Bill's way, then, ipso facto and QED, you are clearly immature.
No, that didn't really eviscerate any right-wing arguments, but I can never pass up the chance to point out how Strong is just a pompous, dishonest douchebag for partisan hackery. So sue me. Onward.
The next idiotic justification comes from "tomax", who scribbles:
But if the Liberals, MSM, CTV-Tass and CBC-Pravada are all howling over it, then it means Harper did the right thing.
Ah, this would be the "argument from outrage" where your opponent's anger is all the justification you need to claim the moral high ground. Memo to "tomax": If we ever meet, I'm hoping you won't take it the wrong way if I give you a good, swift one to the nads. Your inevitable annoyance would, of course, only prove the wisdom of my actions, right?
The next irritating rationalization comes from "Curtis" (although the same argument can be found in numerous places). Curtis writes:
Having an unelected senator in the cabinet is unconstitutional? Where does it say that?
I may be misinterpreting Curtis but this resembles an argument I've seen in various places which, in a shorter form, says, "Hey, Harper had the authority to do what he did and it's nothing other prime ministers haven't done before. So there." The argument seems to be that Harper didn't break any rules or laws so, hey, we're all cool.
But, to the best of my knowledge, no one is claiming that Harper didn't have the authority to, for instance, appoint Michael Fortier to the Senate. Everyone I know openly admits that Harper had the legal right to do that.
The issue is rather that Harper clearly implied during the campaign that he wouldn't do such a thing. That's the issue. It's not the legal authority, it's the lying. So trying to weasel out of this on a technicality is really pretty lame. (In effect, that defense is little more than the playground version of, "Well, Billy did it first!" Really mature, guys. Your hallway monitors would be so proud of you.)
But I've saved the best for last, because the final defense of Harper's actions really is the most nauseatingly hypocritical swill imaginable.
Numerous wankers (including the aforementioned lying hack Bill Strong) have written something along the lines of: "What Stephen Harper and David Emerson did is best for the country and, in particular, it's in the best interests of the voters of Emerson's Vancouver Kingsway riding. They should be grateful." Let me explain this a little more carefully so you truly understand what kind of dishonest rubbish this is.
The most popular talking point these days seems to be that the voters in Vancouver Kingsway are actually better off after Emerson's defection since it's definitely better for the riding to have a sitting cabinet minister in the ruling party than a mere MP sitting in opposition. And you know what? Technically, that argument has value.
It's common knowledge that a riding might get better service if their MP happens to be a member of the party in charge. That should be obvious and, in a close race with all other factors being equal, that issue might just be enough to tip the voters one way or the other, depending on what the polls are saying. So, yes, there's a fundamental truth there. And how does it apply to the riding of Vancouver Kingsway? Not at all, it turns out.
See, all of the polls in the last days of the campaign clearly showed an imminent Tory government (with some even suggesting a Tory majority). So the outcome of the election was not really in that much doubt in terms of who was going to be the next PM but, in the face of all of the news coverage and with little doubt as to who would be running the country, the voters of Vancouver Kingsway still chose to elect the Liberal candidate.
In short, those voters knew what the outcome of the election was going to be, considered the argument above and resoundingly rejected it. Those voters made it abundantly clear that, given the option of electing a CPC candidate that would be part of the (probable) winning team, they overwhelmingly preferred to be represented by someone who would be sitting in opposition, and damn the consequences.
But now, along come Stephen Harper and David Emerson and their coterie of slobbering attack poodles, patronizingly chiding the critics and suggesting that this is really better for those residents of Vancouver Kingsway who were so blatantly betrayed.
What none of those despicable hacks seem to understand is that it's not their job to decide what's best for those voters. There's only one group who gets to make that decision, and that's the voters themselves. And those voters were sufficiently emphatic that what they wanted was a Liberal to represent them. Those voters understood how politics works and they could read the polls like everyone else and, in the end, they made their decision. They -- the voters -- decided what was best for their riding.
But now along come Stephen Harper, and David Emerson, and the hypocritical wanks over at Steve Janke's blog, being patronizing buttheads and telling all of those voters, "Well, yes, we know what you wanted, but we know better. We know what's in your best interests, so stop whining and just be grateful."
(And regarding this "what's best for the country" swill, well, personally, I think it would have been best for the country if Harper had not appointed as federal justice minister someone who is such an unethical, unprincipled hack that he pleaded guilty to violating provincial election laws. But, hey, that's just me. But I digress. Onward.)
What none of these hacks seem to understand is that deciding what's in anyone's best interests is simply not their job. That job belongs to the voters, and it's not Stephen Harper's job, or David Emerson's job, or Bill Strong's job, to come along afterwards and tell these people that, somehow, they know what's best for them. That's the voters' job, and it's why we have elections, a critical fact that all of these hacks seem to have conveniently forgotten.
But all is not gloom and doom. One silver lining is that Steve Janke has, for our convenience, produced here a list of right-wing blogs who have publicly lined up behind Harper. Or, to put it another way, he has given us all a list of bloggers who have put their partisan hypocrisy on such public display that anything they write can, from this day forward, be summarily dismissed as utter rubbish.
At least for that, Mr. Janke, I can be grateful.
AFTERSNARK: I look forward to the day when the opposition parties bring down the government, and right-wing wanks from coast to coast sit there fuming and sputtering over it, and we can sit back and say, "Hey, it was in the best interests of the country. You'll just have to trust us on this one."
Yes, I'm sure they'll all see the logic in that. To deny it would be, well, immature.
BONUS TRACK: And the main rationalization for David Emerson's treason goes down the drain, despite what the Globe and Mail might think. Whatever will we tell the children?