Liberals - started January 28, 2015

177 posts / 0 new
Last post
thorin_bane

Right next to the cynicism  section. You know the way 

scott16

is she running again because I believe Navdeep Bains has the nomination in her riding and someone else has the nomination in the Oakville riding she wanted to parachute to?

Does that article specify if she's running again?

Unionist

thorin_bane wrote:

Right next to the cynicism  section. You know the way 

You're actually defending Stockholm's offensive, sexist crap? Or you just can't resist taking swipes at me?

Anyway, back to the topic.

Will the NDP demand that Eve Adams resign her seat and run under the Liberal banner before joining their caucus? After all, her constituents elected a Harper Con, no?

Brachina

https://leftyinparadise.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/justin-plays-the-apple-...

 

 The Tories and Liberals are interchangable.

MegB

Laughing Idle Gossip and Scandal forum.

nicky

Adams in now posing as a red Tory after being a reliable right wing soldier for years.
Trudeau 's standards must be really low to accept such an ethically challenged right winger into his caucus. He also reveals how fundamentally conservative he really is.v

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

Will the NDP demand that Eve Adams resign her seat and run under the Liberal banner before joining their caucus? After all, her constituents elected a Harper Con, no?

Speak of the devil!

 

NDP Ethics critic, Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay), made the following statement about the decision of Eve Adams to cross the floor of the House of Commons:

“Once again, an elected official is thinking of their own career ahead of the constituents that elected her. The Liberal Party of Canada is giving us yet another example of cynicism by accepting in their ranks a Conservative MP that has fallen out of favor of the Prime minister.

“Members shouldn’t play petty politics and think only of their career, by changing political parties whenever they like. MP’s are elected personally and under their party banner. We must ensure that members are accountable to their constituents.

“We believe that changing political affiliation during your term needs the approval of your constituents. The NDP tabled a Private member’s bill to state those principles and to prohibit sitting MP’s from crossing the floor.

“This is why the NDP is asking Eve Adams to do the right thing for democracy and to resign and to run in a by-election.”

 

http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-eve-adams-crossing-floor

Unionist

Meanwhile, the Cons are claiming she didn't just quit - she was fired:

Quote:

In a written statement, Conservative Party president John Walsh said that "just a couple [of] weeks ago," Adams had requested permission to run for a Conservative nomination in a new riding — and was rejected.

"I informed her in writing on Jan. 29 that she would not be permitted to run for our party in the next election due to the misconduct from the Oakville North-Burlington nomination race," he said.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eve-adams-former-conservative-mp-joins-l...

Of course - they didn't turf her from caucus. A vote is a vote.

Stockholm

So let me get this straight. The Liberals are accepting with open arms a woman who was barred from running by her party because or her unethical and illegal practices (and in the CPC it takes A LOT to be seen as "too unethical") but they barred from running for life poor Christine Innes not for anything that she did personally but because of something her husband supposedly did?

Unionist

The Liberals are not known for being very choosy. A long list of names from history could probably be assembled to illustrate that fact.

You have to admire someone who says, "well, I don't care which constituents I serve, or which party I serve, I just want to serve!!!!"

Or maybe "admire" is the wrong word.

At least she's against income splitting.

Some enterprising journalist should figure out the real reason for that.

 

 

janfromthebruce

Eva is on record supporting income splitting, speaking out and supporting the anti union bill, and prolife and believes in traditional marriage. Now how red tory is that or is that just Liberals turning themselves into pretzels.

By the way, that was the worst cross over ever.

So a right winger joings the other right wing party. Home is where you hang your hat and expense your hair dresser.

robbie_dee

[url=http://www.thebeaverton.com/national/national-in-brief/item/1749-trudeau... forgets to google 'Eve Adams' before welcoming her into Liberal Party[/url]

Quote:

OTTAWA - Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau failed to conduct a google search on former Conservative MP Eve Adams before allowing her to cross the floor into the Liberal Party.

“Oh, shit!” a wide-eyed Trudeau said to himself after typing Adams’ name into a search engine. “I didn’t even realize that was her. She’s married to a former PMO director of communications. And it says here she also tried to hijack a Conservative riding nomination, which led to her not being allowed to run as a Conservative in the next election. Boy, I should have looked this up beforehand.”

addictedtomyipod

janfromthebruce wrote:

Eva is on record supporting income splitting, speaking out and supporting the anti union bill, and prolife and believes in traditional marriage. Now how red tory is that or is that just Liberals turning themselves into pretzels.

By the way, that was the worst cross over ever.

So a right winger joings the other right wing party. Home is where you hang your hat and expense your hair dresser.


She should haved crossed over to the Greens. She sounds like a good fit for them.

Debater

Unionist wrote:

Meanwhile, the Cons are claiming she didn't just quit - she was fired:

Quote:

In a written statement, Conservative Party president John Walsh said that "just a couple [of] weeks ago," Adams had requested permission to run for a Conservative nomination in a new riding — and was rejected.

"I informed her in writing on Jan. 29 that she would not be permitted to run for our party in the next election due to the misconduct from the Oakville North-Burlington nomination race," he said.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eve-adams-former-conservative-mp-joins-l...

Of course - they didn't turf her from caucus. A vote is a vote.

The Cons are trying to do damge control to explaiin why they are losing another MP.

They have allowed Eve Adams to stay in caucus for the past year.

If she was so bad, why didn't they boot her out ages ago?

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

So let me get this straight. The Liberals are accepting with open arms a woman who was barred from running by her party because or her unethical and illegal practices (and in the CPC it takes A LOT to be seen as "too unethical") but they barred from running for life poor Christine Innes not for anything that she did personally but because of something her husband supposedly did?

Something Innes' husband supposedly did?  Stockholm, you are the one who has reminded us multiple times over the years that Tony Ianno was a corrupt individual who was barred for several years by the Ontario Securities Commission for corrupt trading practices!  Interesting that you criticize the Innes-Ianno family for years, and then you suddenly come to their defence when Trudeau is supposedly being mean to them.

Debater

robbie_dee wrote:

[url=http://www.thebeaverton.com/national/national-in-brief/item/1749-trudeau... forgets to google 'Eve Adams' before welcoming her into Liberal Party[/url]

Quote:

OTTAWA - Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau failed to conduct a google search on former Conservative MP Eve Adams before allowing her to cross the floor into the Liberal Party.

“Oh, shit!” a wide-eyed Trudeau said to himself after typing Adams’ name into a search engine. “I didn’t even realize that was her. She’s married to a former PMO director of communications. And it says here she also tried to hijack a Conservative riding nomination, which led to her not being allowed to run as a Conservative in the next election. Boy, I should have looked this up beforehand.”

Another attempt to make Trudeau look foolish when he is actually very smart and a good political strategist (which is why he's beating the pants off Tom Mulcair!)

Trudeau and everyone else in the party is very well aware that Eve Adams is partnered to Dmitri Soudas (who is a former Liberal, btw).

Soudas is going to be helping Eve Adams with her campaign, and Soudas might give Trudeau some insight into Harper's secrets that he learned while working for the CPC! 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-conservative-advisor-dimitri-souda...

Debater

Here's what Alice Funke just tweeted:

Problem for the Conservative explanation on Eve Adams: if she was too unethical to run in #elxn42, why still a Parliamentary Secretary?

https://twitter.com/punditsguide/status/564907896681791488

Brachina

 If Soudas gives Trudeau insights into Harper I fully expect Trudeau to end up in a Straight Jacket foaming at the mouth ;p

Stockholm

The difference between Eve Adams and Christine Innes is that Innes got slandered and expelled not for anything she did - but because of "guilt by association" with what her husband is alleged to have done. Eve Adams has a long list of transgressions of her very own - including being barred from running again for the Tories because of her own personal unseemly behaviour!

 

Debater wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

So let me get this straight. The Liberals are accepting with open arms a woman who was barred from running by her party because or her unethical and illegal practices (and in the CPC it takes A LOT to be seen as "too unethical") but they barred from running for life poor Christine Innes not for anything that she did personally but because of something her husband supposedly did?

Something Innes' husband supposedly did?  Stockholm, you are the one who has reminded us multiple times over the years that Tony Ianno was a corrupt individual who was barred for several years by the Ontario Securities Commission for corrupt trading practices!  Interesting that you criticize the Innes-Ianno family for years, and then you suddenly come to their defence when Trudeau is supposedly being mean to them.

ajaykumar

May I remind everyone that Angry Tom was also a liberal. 

Marco C

ajaykumar wrote:

May I remind everyone that Angry Tom was also a liberal. 

 

Go right ahead since the LPQ is not a part of the LPC and has nothing really to do with them. As for "angry' Tom he's much better and far more honest than "empty head" Trudeau.

NorthReport

Nicki Corrigall/Postmedia NewsNicki Corrigall/Postmedia NewsFormer Conservative MP Belinda Stronach is welcomed to the Liberal Party by Prime Minister Paul Martin in May 2005.

Adams is just following Stronach's brilliant move (how long after Stronach floor-crossing did Mr 250 seats minimum blow the election?) Laughing

Looks like Trudeau will be hoist on his own petard here. 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

It is extremely difficult to imagine a worse MP to be added to the caucus of Justin Trudeau than Eve Adams.

Good letter from the NDP denouncing the crapulent treachery against the  citizens who voted for a Conservative and got a Liberal.

If she wanted to leave the Tory caucus, she should have resigned her seat.  Now, she keeps her parliamentary salary until October.

She is going to demand a nomination from Justin Trudeau.

The media are going to have a field day. She will be a potential source of gaffes and improprieties, and people will be snooping into her past.

This was her only chance. She was done as a Tory.

Now she has a new life as a Liberal. The slate is wiped clean.

The cynicism by the Liberal Party is almost surprisingly bad.

Eve Adams was unfit to be a Conservative candidate.

Worse than Rob Anders, who was redistributed away.

It is one less for the Conservatives, and for that we should be happy.

And it is Eve Adams for the Liberals, and for that we should be even happier.

This looks like double-happy for the NDP! 

thorin_bane

Unionist wrote:

thorin_bane wrote:

Right next to the cynicism  section. You know the way 

You're actually defending Stockholm's offensive, sexist crap? Or you just can't resist taking swipes at me?

Anyway, back to the topic.

Will the NDP demand that Eve Adams resign her seat and run under the Liberal banner before joining their caucus? After all, her constituents elected a Harper Con, no?


Nevermind just putting you back on my ignore list. So tired of your drive by smears at posters with nothing ever done about it. No instead we get a wink and a nod from one of them. Fucking Babble

ajaykumar

Maria Mourani????????

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

The difference between Eve Adams and Christine Innes is that Innes got slandered and expelled not for anything she did - but because of "guilt by association" with what her husband is alleged to have done. Eve Adams has a long list of transgressions of her very own - including being barred from running again for the Tories because of her own personal unseemly behaviour!

Did you read what Alice Funke said?

Problem for the Conservative explanation on Eve Adams: if she was too unethical to run in#elxn42, why still a Parliamentary Secretary?

https://twitter.com/punditsguide/status/564907896681791488

sherpa-finn

Personally, I think they make a lovely couple.

 

Chris Wattie/Reuters

Atlas

The NDP is now the only party that prohibits floor-crossers from joining their Caucus without a mandate from their voters to do so. 

The Conservatives, the Liberals - and the Greens - all participate in this shameful betrayal of the trust of voters. Note that Maria Mourani has NOT been allowed to sit with the NDP caucus, but will run as a New Democrat next election in order to earn the right to do so. 

Folks can struggle mightily to try and justify this crass, opportunistic and fundamentally anti-democratic practice - but putting lipstick on a pig don't change the pork.

The fact is simple:  in a democracy, voters get to determine the political character of their representative. PERIOD. Once you violate this principle, you have elitism, opportunism and cynicism - but you DON'T have representative democracy.

And if those who seek to excuse this fundamental violation of democratic principle are SO SURE it is justified - then put your money where your mouth is and compel floor-crossers to resign their seat and put their argument to the test of their voters - where it belongs.

 

 

Atlas

sherpa-finn wrote:

Ugh meets Smug

 

Chris Wattie/Reuters

Debater

sherpa-finn wrote:

Personally, I think they make a lovely couple.

 

Chris Wattie/Reuters

Are you saying Sophie Grégoire should be jealous? Surprised

Debater

Atlas wrote:

The NDP is now the only party that prohibits floor-crossers from joining their Caucus without a mandate from their voters to do so. 

Only in the most technical sense, Atlas.

Maria Mourani may not have technically crossed the floor to the NDP caucus, but she has done everything but.

She took out an NDP membership, and has already been acclaimed as the NDP candidate for Ahuntsic in Montreal.  All while she was still an elected MP before seeking a new mandate from the voters.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

There are so many things I could say about that picture however I would not want anyone to get sued.

scott16

here's another tweet from Alice Funke right after the tweet Debater posted. It's negative to the Libs.

Problem for the Libs w/Eve Adams explanation: how do they swallow themselves whole on everything they've already said about her & Dimitri.

https://twitter.com/punditsguide/status/564909170106064897

Malcontent

ajaykumar wrote:

May I remind everyone that Angry Tom was also a liberal. 

 

So was harper...

Debater

Eve Adams Aims To Run Against Joe Oliver In Toronto Riding

OTTAWA — Newly minted Liberal MP Eve Adams plans to run against Finance Minister Joe Oliver in the Toronto riding of Eglinton–Lawrence, The Huffington Post Canada has learned.

. . .

The riding of Eglinton–Lawrence was held by Grit MP and cabinet minister Joe Volpe from 1988 until 2011, when Oliver defeated him by 4,062 votes. The Liberals had held the seat continuouslysince the riding’s creation in 1979.

The potential contest between Adams and Oliver could explain why the former Conservative parliamentary secretary kept mentioning the Tories’ income-splitting decision as one of her main reasons for jumping to the Liberals during her press conference.

The Conservative government was pitting one group of Canadians against another, Adams said, “forcing the middle class to pay for what amounts to a rather substantial tax cut to the wealthiest families in Canada.

“It’s not just I that has come to this realization,” Adams said, noting that the late Jim Flaherty, while finance minister, had also been critical of the income-splitting program.

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/09/eve-adams-joe-oliver_n_6649004.html

takeitslowly

Trudeau relates to Eve Adam because she has really nice hair.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I bet Eve will not have to contest the nomination in Eglinton Lawrence.

Ciabatta2

They want to welcome Eve Adams?  Whose next?  This one sure has a whiff of "WTF" about it.

Unionist

Debater wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Meanwhile, the Cons are claiming she didn't just quit - she was fired:

Quote:

In a written statement, Conservative Party president John Walsh said that "just a couple [of] weeks ago," Adams had requested permission to run for a Conservative nomination in a new riding — and was rejected.

"I informed her in writing on Jan. 29 that she would not be permitted to run for our party in the next election due to the misconduct from the Oakville North-Burlington nomination race," he said.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eve-adams-former-conservative-mp-joins-l...

Of course - they didn't turf her from caucus. A vote is a vote.

The Cons are trying to do damge control to explaiin why they are losing another MP.

They have allowed Eve Adams to stay in caucus for the past year.

If she was so bad, why didn't they boot her out ages ago?

With all due respect, Debater - isn't that what I just said?

Debater

Unionist wrote:

Debater wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Meanwhile, the Cons are claiming she didn't just quit - she was fired:

Quote:

In a written statement, Conservative Party president John Walsh said that "just a couple [of] weeks ago," Adams had requested permission to run for a Conservative nomination in a new riding — and was rejected.

"I informed her in writing on Jan. 29 that she would not be permitted to run for our party in the next election due to the misconduct from the Oakville North-Burlington nomination race," he said.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eve-adams-former-conservative-mp-joins-l...

Of course - they didn't turf her from caucus. A vote is a vote.

The Cons are trying to do damge control to explaiin why they are losing another MP.

They have allowed Eve Adams to stay in caucus for the past year.

If she was so bad, why didn't they boot her out ages ago?

With all due respect, Debater - isn't that what I just said?

Yes, and that's also the point Alice Funke made.  I was just trying to reinforce it by quoting Funke since what I say it treated as suspect by NDPers.

Maybe you will have more luck. Wink

Pondering

Lest we forget the Liberals are having open nominations.  Wink I'll be interested to see if she wins one.

Marco C

Pondering wrote:

Lest we forget the Liberals are having open nominations.  Wink I'll be interested to see if she wins one.

I think you meen "open nominations"

 

jjuares

Politically this is a very strange move for the Liberals. I can't see any upside for them but lots of risk.

Pondering

Marco C wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Lest we forget the Liberals are having open nominations.  Wink I'll be interested to see if she wins one.

I think you meen "open nominations"

 

Took me a minute, LOL. 

Debater

Marco C wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Lest we forget the Liberals are having open nominations.  Wink I'll be interested to see if she wins one.

I think you meen "open nominations"

That one was good.  I admit.

Let me say for the record that I'm not entirely sure what to make of the Eve Adams crossing.  It's not something I would have recommended.  It does indeed have some potential negatives for the Liberals.  Gerald Butts is a smart strategist, and Justin Trudeau usually has good political instincts, but this could be a gamble.  On the other hand, if it's true that they want to set up a situation of having a former CPC MP running against Joe Oliver & denouncing the Finance Minister over income splitting, it could turn out to have some positives as well.

Marco C

From a non-bias point of view (I’ll try my best) it seems like a bad idea.

 

If I'm a voter looking for real change in government seeing the Liberal party take in a Conservative defector, her baggage and JT twisting of events notwithstanding, It would make me worry what kind of government the liberal are really offering.

 

Now as a diehard NDP activist this just proves to me and others that the only real difference between the LPC and CPC is party colour and a single letter. It’s a cynical and short sighted move on the part or JT and whoever's advising him, taking in a Tory pariah who as little of 7 weeks ago was trumpeting the Government's policy on taxes, foreign affairs, the environment and reproductive rights is just foolish.

 

What happened to all the talk of being a new party and governing in a new way? What happened to JT being a new kind of leader? It’s not that I don’t know the answer it just pisses me of the cynicism of it all, it’s this kind of bull that makes people apathetic and less involved,  it make people question the value of democracy.

 

And what’s worse I can’t understand why you would still support the Liberals over the NDP, you seem like you have more than half a brain and yet you still would support this kind of cynical backroom power peddling.

Slumberjack

So, to me what comes across with the Eve Adams/Liberal Party affair is that it has nothing to do with policy differences, or past positions and what the other has supported and stands willing to support.  No, it all boils down to differences in leadership style.  Other than that, the respective candidates of the Liberal and Conservative parties are perfectly interchangeable is what I'm getting.  But it's not like we haven't suspected that this has been the case all along, and that what we're really talking about between Liberals and Conservatives is opportunities that comes knocking.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Running her in Eglinton Lawrence gets her out of Mississauga-Brampton. The Liberals get a lot of action in those areas, so it gets her out of the way of the usual suspects who largely come out of the immigrant communities there. Navdeep Bains had his head screwed on right about demonizing Muslims and racist dog calls to xenophobes at least in 2011.

Eve Adams is pretty right wing, and it does not reduce the NDP claim the Liberals and Tories are the same. Indeed, she is running on a fiscal issue which Jim Flaherty would have argued for. Trudeau is letting her play an inter-Tory war against Joe Oliver, which can be couched in Tory terms. She is not, for example, going to troll Oliver for not bringing back Canada's public housing programs or a number of other things of interest to the poor.

The Tories are going to defend Oliver will all guns ablazing. Eglinton Lawrence is one of their beach-heads in the 416, and spearheads the Tory strategy to for other ridings in the middle and upper tier, Don Mills E and W, Thornhill, etc.

Eve Adams now has to oppose all the policies she used to support, or learn to speak them the Liberal way. Even if she does that, people are going to think she is slithery and slimy. 

nicky

I would have thought that Eglinton-Lawrence is a top Liberal target where they would run a substantial candidate. Why waste it on an ethically challenged right wing light weight parachutist like Adams?
Of course the Liberals are doing the same thing in Papineau.

nicky

But it was not Ms. Adams who was called upon to deliver the day’s most crawlingly demeaning performance. That honour was reserved for Justin Trudeau. Ms. Adams, after all, was desperate. Mr. Trudeau had a choice. That he chose to receive her, not with a shrug of “hey, a seat’s a seat,” but in the same spirit of feigned high-mindedness, proves beyond a doubt his fitness for the rigours of high office.

Pages