Harping on Harpers Hypotheticals

Yesterday was Stephen Harper’s 52nd birthday, and he celebrated by getting his sycophants to boo a CBC reporter asking a legitimate question.

I’m sorry, was that too bitter and uncalled-for?

Okay, okay, I modify. He celebrated by rebuffing talk of government 'hypotheticals', and then his supporters rebuffed this talk further by booing Terry Milewski when he tried to ask the question again.

The whole thing is fairly ridiculous.

But when pressed by reporters about what he would do if the next-biggest party was asked to form a government, Harper said he would not speculate about "hypothetical" scenarios following the election.
"We're in this to win, I believe we're going to win; a lot is at stake, every race is close," Harper said.

"What we're doing now is speculating on hypothetical scenarios. We're putting before Canadians the choice that they have, a Conservative government that will keep taxes low and keep the economy moving forward, or an NDP government that will raise taxes, stall our recovery, and set Canadian families back."

The CBC's Terry Milewski faced supporters' boos when he attempted to ask Harper the question again.

In an interview with the CBC's Peter Mansbridge earlier in the campaign, Harper said said he would not attempt to form a government if another party won the most seats in the election and his party came in second place.

When Mansbridge said the other parties have a right to try to form a government if the Tory government failed to gain the confidence of the House, Harper replied: "That's a question of debate, of constitutional law."

Well, actually, it’s not. That is how things work in a parliamentary democracy. Remember the Westminster System? I’ve been harping on that for a while. (haha, harping on Harper…) If Stephen Harper is like, “Screw parliamentary democracies, I want to make our system more like a republic,” that is one thing. But when he’s like, “Oh, no, all the rules you’ve ever known about the Westminster system are not at all set in stone and I’m just going to flout them individually one by one,” that’s when I get angry.

And people believe him!

Guys, I think the answer is obvious. Clearly, I must run for a federal seat, and fix democracy myself, since none of the supposedly intelligent people we elect seem to know how to do it.

Also. “We’re in this to win,” “I believe we’re going to win,” “A lot is at stake,” and “Every race is close” are all four different complete sentences with very different meanings, and their juxtaposition here into all one long sentence is a bit confounding. Just saying.