Ontario MP Khan leaves Liberals to join Tories

[Antithesis]

Stephane Dion: Khan! KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

OK, sorry, I just felt the need to ... and yes, the voters, if necessary, will hold him accountable in the next election, that being said, perhaps a by-election could/should occur here? One could argue that Khan the Conservative is not the person/politician/entity that these constituents voted in.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I'm sorry, and no sense getting into this discussion here, but there was quite the vitrol against Belinda for doing this, and yet it seems to be a-ok for Kahn to do it. That is what I find interesting. I am not supporting or going against either of them and what they did; I just find the reactions to Kahn's defection and Belinda's defection as quite interesting in comparison.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Calgryborn has already said why there is a difference between the two....not to mention almost everyone on here has said he shouldn't have crossed the floor.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

People have already gone over that issue and have explained why there is such a difference.....can you not see that?

Why did you feel the need to quote and reply to RedHot25 twice?

If the reason was Stronach's "reeking of opportunism" (per calgaryborn) then where was the indignation when David Emmerson flipped for a cabinet position without even sitting a day for the Liberals for whom he had run?

If I recall, at the time the response was, "Well Belinda did it!" But I don't recall the same you of "slut" calls for him.

And I realize you said crossing shouldn't be allowed and they should call a by-election or sit as an independant. I agree with you on that.

I think the issue was all the vitriol spewed out against Stronach when she switched versus the reaction when Emmerson and now Khan crossed the other direction.

Personally, if I were ranking these crossings from most offensive to least offensive I would rank them Emmerson, Stronach, Khan.


[quote=Peter12}1) We have responsible government. That means when we elect an MP, we entrust our power to them and give them the flexibility to act within their own discretion while in Parliament. If an MP decides another party would be a more effective vehicle for their values and beliefs, than they should be allowed to cross.[/quote] Interesting. Haven't I heard parroted on this forum a number of times that MPs should represent the will of the electorate? *

What if Rob Anders crossed the floor? I've read on numerous occasions where people have said they voted for him for his political party but personally dislike him as their MP.


(* actually, I agree with you. I believe I should vote for the person who most represents my beliefs (and who's beliefs correspond to the party they represent) and who is intelligent. Then I can trust them to represent me on parliament hill and make the "right" decisions and not necessarily the popular decisions)

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Why did you feel the need to quote and reply to RedHot25 twice?

I am not sure how that happened. Brain fart. Sorry RedHot...I thought you posted the same thing twice.....my bad

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Why did you feel the need to quote and reply to RedHot25 twice?

If the reason was Stronach's "reeking of opportunism" (per calgaryborn) then where was the indignation when David Emmerson flipped for a cabinet position without even sitting a day for the Liberals for whom he had run?

If I recall, at the time the response was, "Well Belinda did it!" But I don't recall the same you of "slut" calls for him.

And I realize you said crossing shouldn't be allowed and they should call a by-election or sit as an independant. I agree with you on that.

I think the issue was all the vitriol spewed out against Stronach when she switched versus the reaction when Emmerson and now Khan crossed the other direction.

Excellent post.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I am not sure how that happened. Brain fart. Sorry RedHot...I thought you posted the same thing twice.....my bad

Its ok, no worries.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

If I recall, at the time the response was, "Well Belinda did it!" But I don't recall the same you of "slut" calls for him.

Strange.... you posted often in the Emerson thread where there were many such "calls" of slut, whore, ######bag etc.... Memory going on you?

Emerson jumps ship thread

Anyway, I find this particular crossing different than the Belinda and Emerson ones. This really seems to be a push not a pull scenario. You know the saying... "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". Dion had a Liberal MP in good proximity to key opposition members, including the PM, on a very important issue. Instead of continuing that scenario, he says "us or them".

So Dion positions himself as a "with me or against me" type, while Harper (who quickly accepted Khan's offer to advise him) appears to be the one to be inclusive and open to inter-party cooperation.

On this one, unlike the three before (Brison included), I find that the MP here did what he believed was the best course of action, and not for any perceivable personal gain.

If it helps our troops that are currently in harm's way in the Middle East, then I think his changing was noble. From everything I have read so far, I see no reason to believe otherwise.

Should he have done it by sitting as an independent? Definitely. But I do not hold this crossing in as negative light as I do the previous ones.

My 1/10th of a cent... after taxes.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Try evaluating each issue independently... that's what most people do.

(A) What I meant was, I would be ****ed off if my NDP MP switched to an independant and voted with the Conservatives on EVERY issue I would be angry. You took it that I would be ****ed off if my NDP MP switched to an independant and voted with the Conservatives on ANY issue I would be angry and that is not the case at all.

(B) Even if I did mean EVERY issue, I'm sure you have chastized the CPC voters who dismiss every idea the NDP bring forward. Or am I special?

-=-=-=-=-=-

I'm still confused how denying the people of his riding who wanted a Liberal MP is honourable? The honourable thing would have been to say "I ran for, was supported by, and voted in as a Liberal. I no longer feel that I can represent the party I was voted in with and therefore am resigning my seat." That would have been honourable. Denying his constituency the representation that they democratically voted for is *NOT* honourable. But as this thread shows, some CPC supporters are not interested in democracy, accountability and ethics; only spin. People who defect to the CPC are honourable men (and then find all the documentation they can find to spin it that way). People who defect from the CPC are horrible people (and then find all the documentation they can find to spin it that way). As far as I am concerned, ANYONE that defects from one party to another without a byelection no matter what the circumstances should not be held up as an honourable person.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Strange.... you posted often in the Emerson thread where there were many such "calls" of slut, whore, ######bag etc.... Memory going on you?

Emerson jumps ship thread

Anyway, I find this particular crossing different than the Belinda and Emerson ones. This really seems to be a push not a pull scenario. You know the saying... "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". Dion had a Liberal MP in good proximity to key opposition members, including the PM, on a very important issue. Instead of continuing that scenario, he says "us or them".

So Dion positions himself as a "with me or against me" type, while Harper (who quickly accepted Khan's offer to advise him) appears to be the one to be inclusive and open to inter-party cooperation.

On this one, unlike the three before (Brison included), I find that the MP here did what he believed was the best course of action, and not for any perceivable personal gain.

If it helps our troops that are currently in harm's way in the Middle East, then I think his changing was noble. From everything I have read so far, I see no reason to believe otherwise.

Should he have done it by sitting as an independent? Definitely. But I do not hold this crossing in as negative light as I do the previous ones.

My 1/10th of a cent... after taxes.

Fantastic post, Shawnski.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Strange.... you posted often in the Emerson thread where there were many such "calls" of slut, whore, ######bag etc.... Memory going on you?

Emerson jumps ship thread

Actually, it is, but probably because the people who said it (eg Rougeunderoos) aren't one of the CPC supporters who were so vociferous in the condemnation of Belinda.
Lets go back to Stronach crosses the floor

What an absolute slap to the face of democracy. Selfishly selling out her constituents for power and, presumably, money. Just sickening.

I agree this is a slap to her constituents. It shows a real compromise in character.

She was bribed, bought, paid off, etc. Just another corrupt politician completely lacking in morals and honor.

And that was in the first 20 posts! No way has there been anywhere near the condemnation of either of the other 2 crossers, either at the time or since. You deserve props for being consistent ("Personally, I am not impressed, and concur with most posts here (yes, including the "power slut whore" ones!!)") but others cannot claim similar credibility.

[RedHot25]

I'm not defending anything that any and/or all 3 did.

Generally my opinion would think that if anyone crosses, there should be a byelection. So in this case, there would have been one in all 3 cases - Emmerson, Stronach and Kahn. I know what you said, Peter re: responsible gov't (you are a poly sci major, I believe so a lot more knowledage than me re: it...I have taken a handful of poly sci courses, including a graduate one), but to me that should get trumped in a floor-crossing. Liberal to PC, NDP to PC, etc etc...whatever the case may be.

That said, I still find many of the reactions to the 3 floor crossing interesting. People in this thread have attempted to explain the difference to me...but apparently I keep missing it, because I note a lot of the same stuff as Bobblehead has pointed out.

[FireFly]

One thing to keep in mind is that the Liberals just elected a new leader. Khan (and his constituents) may not support the direction that Dion is going. This isn't a crossing just after an election as in Emmerson, or because of one particular issue (though motives are murky as the Conservative stance on gay marriage didn't necessarily conflict with Stronach's, as well as the other issues surrounding her crossing,) this is after a new leader is elected and a difference of opinion is newly found.

[Slava]

I would be completely thrilled if my MP crossed the floor! I know that it will never happen, and that is democracy.
Even in the extreme chance that this was to happen, I think it would only be fair for the other people in my riding to get a byelection so that they are represented. I am working in an election campaign for the future right now, and if that candidate ever crossed after this, he should have to "re-apply".

[mykalberta]

Totally agree that floor crossing is dispicalble especially when its from one side of ideology to anther, on the other hand you vote for the *person*. I agree some vote for the party but you should vote for the person and the party.

This Spring/Summer/Fall is when Kahn's fate will be decided - obviously he decided that given what he knows that Harper was the best guy to get him re-elected.

As a CPC supporter I hope that is the case.

MYK