Garth is at it again and this time he attempts to come to the aid of fellow Liberal MP Ken Boschoff who let the cat out of the bag the other day with his comments about Dion's carbon tax being a wealth redistribution plan rather than an environment plan, and Garth in his usual manner ends up causing more grief for the LPC in the process.
Here are a few highlights from Garth's blog entry along with my comments. (Highlighting mine)
"So, yeah, I know what Ken wrote. I also know why, and what he meant."
Got that; ignore your own eyes and the words that Boschoff himself wrote, because Garth knows better. He know what Boschoff really meant to say, and he knows more about what Boschoff wrote than Boschoff does. Hey Garth, do you also want us to ignore Boschoff's interview on Adler on Friday, where he called the carbon tax "a green anti poverty plan", as well? Please tell us what he meant Garth, because obviously Mr. Boschoff didn't have a clue about what was coming from his own mouth and got it all wrong again since you say in your blog entry; "And lost in the spray of this regional pissing match is the goal of the Dion plan, which is to tackle climate change, not to redistribute wealth."
And what about these quotes?
From the green shift plan pg 7: "To help low-income Canadians in particular, and as part of the Liberal 30/50 Plan to reduce poverty in Canada by 30 per cent and cut child poverty in half within five years, "
Dion: "We Liberals also have a goal – to fight poverty. Our Green Shift will be especially targeted to decrease poverty with further emphasis on helping children in poverty," an upbeat Dion told Liberals MPs and party supporters."
to redistribute wealth."
"I can also tell everyone reading this that not a single time, not once, has the notion of (a) screwing the West, (b) finding a new NEP, (c) transferring wealth from Big Oil to Toronto, (d) funding lavish new social programs or (e) dreaming up a plan to secure the Eastern vote, been discussed in national Liberal caucus."
Lets see if I have this correct. Garth Turner wants everyone to actually believe that the Liberal caucus has never talked about ANY of the things listed above? No talk about what to do to get the East to vote Liberal? No talk at all about how you guys were going to pay for your 30/50 poverty plan? No discussion about how the green shift may be perceived in Alberta and Saskatchewan? Just what do Liberals talk about in their caucus meetings anyway; last nights big game, how to sit on your hands and not ruin your manicure, the weather, what?
I find impossible to believe that these things have never been discussed in the Liberal caucus, considering the quotes on how this ties to the LPC poverty plan I listed above, but maybe I am reading his spin wrong. Perhaps Ken Boschoff could pop in and explain to us what Garth really meant to say in his blog post. It does seem to be the thing to do in Liberal circles lately. ( "Dion's press secretary clarified the leader's comment, ...)
Keep spinning Garth, because with each attempt you give Canadians another chance to see just how the Liberal Party of Canada likes to operate, and to what levels they will go to return to power.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Keep on it Ardvark....blog on!
The voters need to understand the dangers in Dion's plan.
If he gets a chance to re-distribute wealth on a scale which even Chretien or Trudeau did, the incursion into provincial jurisdiction will cause a constitutional crisis that will make the last one look insignificant.
"If he gets a chance to re-distribute wealth on a scale which even Chretien or Trudeau did"
Correction:
That should read "on a scale Chretien or Trudeau could only dream of"
Garth is more interested in promoting his book.
http://www.moneyexpo.ca/
See this interview with David Ingram. Hes a goof.
Maybe if they had talked about those topics, instead of how to sit on your hands and look intelligent, the whold shaftalbertaplan would never have been developed. As for reducing poverty, if you take the figures for living below poverty at 1950 levels I think we have. Stats Canada keeps increasing the level for living in poverty. Those figures will increase as with everything else, so poverty can never be eliminated. Until Stats Can and the liberals told us the figures, lots of people did not know they were living in poverty. Kyoto was supposed to reduce ghg by x% of 1990 levels, so lets fix the figure for living in poverty the same way. What was the poverty level in 1990, reduce that figure by the same %age for ghg, and set that figure in stone for level.
Cutting poverty by 30% by some future year, reducing homelessness by ?, and most social programs are feel good ideas. What is homelessness, not owning your home, or what. And how many of those on the street are there by choice of lifestyle, and want to be there. And how many are there because of feel good ideas like closing institutional beds for the mentally ill, or the diabled, or so many other things. And how many of our so called social ills can be placed on stupid feel good decisions of governments at all levels, especially municipal councils, mayors and other idiots.
You forgot this little nugget! Or should I say admission from Garth.
"We must also hope that folks in resource-rich provinces understand the Green Shift will nail carbon emitters commensurate with the amount of the stuff they pump out, but that the ultimate cost will come from consumers, the majority of whom do not live in Alberta or Saskatchewan."
Thanks for the comments and the links to the post. With the BT aggregator down this weekend it helped the traffic.
This plan is so bad that they cannot sell it to anyone but the red koolaid drinkers. Even the usual Liberal double talk isn't working this time around.
Anon, I saw that little quote and since it didn't quite fit with that post I never included it, but that doesn't mean that it will not find its way into another post =)
Post a Comment