Harper’s new Senate appointments disappoint
Word on the street is that Harper will send a whack of Conservative Party insiders to the red chamber tomorrow, including Conservative campaign manager Doug Finley, party president Don Plett, and long-time communications aide Carolyn Stewart-Olsen. This follows his last Senate-spree in December, when he rewarded 18 good Conservatives with what might be the best Christmas present ever. The common qualification possessed by many of the this week’s likely appointees appears to be an undying loyalty to Harper.
Of the names being tossed about this morning, none disgusts me more than Doug Finley. The Machiavellian campaign operative is a master of subverting democracy – both internally, in the Conservative Party, where he controls nomination procedures with an iron fist and has been deeply involved in Harper’s centralization of power (read Garth Turner’s new book “Sheeple” to learn more), and externally, when it comes to matters pertaining to governing the country. He was heavily implicated in Conservative efforts to spread misinformation on Canada’s political system during the coalition/prorogation fiasco last year. I can think of few individuals less suited to promote the common good while serving Canadians as a legislator.
But the real dilemma on my mind today is that I can’t sort out who I respect less — Doug Finley, or Mike Duffy (recall that Duffy joined the Senate in the aforementioned glut of pre-holiday appointments). The former, a campaign operative who routinely subverts democracy and twists the truth, and the latter, a former TV host who many believe abandoned all journalistic ethics during the last election in his “reporting”, while actively working to help elect the Conservatives. Indeed, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council found Duffy had violated journalistic ethics and that his election-time reporting was “unfair and unbalanced”. His reward for being Harper’s little helper? A Senate seat.
I think Duffy wins (loses?), but Finley gives him a run for his money.
Scridb filter
Well, given that Harper’s partisan appointments were largely prompted by Elizabeth May’s musings last fall, I don’t really think you’re in a position to criticise.
I’m not sure the general public would find her appointment less offensive than this set.
This is the downside of senators for life. We’re stuck with the scary bunch.
The sickest part of all this is that Harper appointed the Senators who would uphold “the elected government” of Canada. Which government was that? We elect MPs, they form a government. If we did “elect” the Conservatives, we did it at a rate of 37 for every 100 voters. If the Senate is to reflect voters’ interests, then there should be 6 Green Senators for every 100 of them.
Then this morning I heard Linda Frum interviewed on cbc radio. She said that a Senator is “beholden” to whomsoever appoints her, and should vote in favour of their legislation, whatever personal opinions or views she has. So much for the chamber of sober second thought, and so much for democracy.