Friday, March 23, 2007

Addition by Subtraction

Tom Wappell has called it a career.

Great news as this opens up a fairly strong Liberal seat for some fresh blood and gets rid of one of (if not the most) socially conservative MPs in the Liberal Party.

posted by calgarygrit at 3:23 p.m.

20 Comments:

  • Reading the story, it is hard to imagine how he could ever represent the liberal party. No great loss.

    I am going to guess he is one of those examples of people voting for the party, and not the person.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 4:01 p.m.  

  • I would never vote for TW (I'm not in his riding). Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 4:48 p.m.  

  • The socially conservative vote in that riding is about 71% of the vote. If it's a strong Liberal riding, Dion will have no problem parachuting a pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage woman candidate into the rididng, right?

    By Blogger nuna d. above, at 5:22 p.m.  

  • Even as a libertarian, I don't understand why chasing out social conservatives is a good thing - is there no room for so-cons in the Liberal Party, the party of inclusion?...

    By Blogger ALW, at 6:59 p.m.  

  • is there no room for so-cons in the Liberal Party, the party of inclusion?...

    There is no room for So-cons in Canada, period.

    By Blogger Joanne (True Blue), at 8:51 p.m.  

  • I think Tom Wappel was only a Liberal because he knew he couldn't win as a Tory. Really this guy is probably amongst the top 20 most right wing members of parliament. Here in Ontario, the Tories have 40 seats, but despite this, only two MPs (David Sweet and Cheryl Gallant) are as right wing as Tom Wappel. I believe all parties should be big tent parties and tolerate diversity, but if someone totally disagrees with the principles of the party, then I think it is reasonable to ask them to leave. Disagreeing on one issue is fine, but disagreeing with the whole principles of the party is a totally different thing.

    To the tories who call this intolerance, I ask would you let an economic nationalists or someone in favour of big government such as David Orcahrd be a Conservative candidate. I highly doubt it and understandably.

    By Blogger Monkey Loves to Fight, at 9:21 p.m.  

  • Most people who read this blog would suggest there is no room in Canada for narrow minded bigots either.

    I was being facetious; as in it is not very acceptable to be a So-Con in Canada no matter what party you belong to.

    By Blogger Joanne (True Blue), at 9:31 p.m.  

  • Joanne,

    are you going batty?

    Of course there's room for So-Cons in the Conservative Party.

    One of the reasons I am not a Liberal anymore and will never be again is their hostility towards anything conflicting with their dogma. They are So-Cons in all the ways people don't like So-Cons. Its the moral certainty of people's convictions that can be a turn off - its the lack of humility in their advocacy of these issues that's the rub.

    The trick is to have a reasoned debate and to work at not letting these issues divide people and prevent people from cooperating on the myriad issues where commonality exists.

    There is a party where all that happens (and more). Stephen Harper runs that party.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 11:12 p.m.  

  • This is great news. Wappel was an embarrassment. As for all this Conservative blather here about a big tent, let me say this. Wappel held that homosexuality was morally wrong and that personhood began at conception and these two positions in large part defined his career. The problem is that both positions are intellectually untenable. And no, there should be no room for anyone holding these views inside the Liberal party.

    By Blogger Koby, at 6:44 a.m.  

  • Joanne, are you going batty?

    Of course there's room for So-Cons in the Conservative Party.

    lol! That does rather defeat the premise of your post doesn't it? Sorry about that Chucker.

    O.K. Allow me to rephrase my statement - A So-Con's POV is as welcome as anyone else's in the CPC. It is a big tent indeed.

    However, that same So-Con can face a lot of hostility and ridicule if he or she attempts to express their beliefs in the Canadian mainstream. In that situation, they are often called "Right-Wing zealots", "Religious extremists", etc. etc.

    By Blogger Joanne (True Blue), at 8:20 a.m.  

  • that personhood began at conception and these two positions in large part defined his career. The problem is that both positions are intellectually untenable. And no, there should be no room for anyone holding these views inside the Liberal party.

    -Which is probably why Paul Steckle is calling it quits, among others.

    By Blogger Joanne (True Blue), at 8:22 a.m.  

  • Joanne (TB),

    Koby proves the point with his declarations of intellectual untenability.

    I would dispute though, your claim that people like Koby represent "mainstream" Canada or that the G&M/CBC are voices of "mainstream" Canada.

    Every abortion is a tragedy. Even Hillary Clinton says this. I'm not saying how this translates into government action, but people who disagree with that statement are not "mainstream" Canadians.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 9:44 a.m.  

  • there should be no room for anyone holding these views inside the Liberal party

    Actually, my best friend - and a few people I call very good friends - once held/or hold those some views - that homosexuality is morally wrong, and life begins at conception.

    People change with engagement, not spurning. They've changed over the years - in some cases, they've changed a lot.

    I'm NOT defending Wappel - he is trash, not for those views, but for

    a) what Chucker aptly describes when he says, the moral certainty of people's convictions that can be a turn off - its the lack of humility in their advocacy of these issues , and

    b) his sense of entitlement (ie. refusing to help a veteran in his riding obtain his pension b/c the veteran voted for another party) (why wasn't Wappel thrown in jail for that???, I really believe more public officials should spend stints in prison for abusing public trust).

    CG/Dan is right, it's best for EVERYone with Wappel gone. But I do think there is room, a lot, for social conservatives in the Liberal Party (and in Canada, of course).

    You guys need to remember that not everyone agrees with you on every single issue - there are people who are 'against' abortion who do NOT picket clinics, and do not like or trust those who do. They may be squeamish about late-term abortions, but be fine with early-term abortions. I've found that many people just want their view listened to, and don't need to be taken to heart. They just want to be taken seriously.

    You can see in the last US election with the Democrat win how many people were won over, enough to tip the scales, in districts where Democrats wanted abortion safe and legal, but reduced, with more options available. That's "big tent". Just because a person is unhappy with vaccuuming out a late-term baby's brains doesn't make them into Tom Wappel or Rob Anders. It often makes them into what is called a "swing voter". They just want to be listened to, the way so many of those successful Democrats did.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 10:17 a.m.  

  • I'm with Chucker = Koby does not represent mainstream Canada, but rather the flip-side to Tom Wappel/Jason Kenney etc etc. "I'm right, you're wrong".

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 10:19 a.m.  

  • Oh no! Where will we find another politician with the character to say, "Get lost, war veteran with disabilities; you didn't vote for me"?

    By Blogger Unknown, at 10:24 a.m.  

  • Ha ha, Daniel - I wish I could be that pithy and succinct!

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 10:53 a.m.  

  • The problem is that both positions are intellectually untenable. And no, there should be no room for anyone holding these views inside the Liberal party.

    So why was he allowed to sit as a Liberal for 19 years? It's not like he just embraced his so-con beliefs. He has always held them during his time in Parliament. All these expressions of relief at his leaving are just a tad rich.

    By Blogger Greg, at 1:43 p.m.  

  • For the same reasons that a believer in flat earth and alien abduction should run for the Liberal party, a person who believes that homosexuality is morally wrong and that personhood begins at conception should not run for the Liberal party.

    For a position to be mainstream it has to have more than a wide body of support. The fact, for example, that a huge % of the population believe in ghosts does not make such a believe mainstream. For a position to be mainstream it has to have some intellectual weight and the aformentioned beliefs have none.

    "All these expressions of relief at his leaving are just a tad rich."

    Come again? Calgary Grit is quite the media darling these days. However, make no mistake about what is happening here. A bunch of powerless bloggers are delighted to see Wappel go. Why? It is our hope that as the Wappels of the world leave the Liberal party, the party will do more to live up to its name in the future.

    By Blogger Koby, at 3:13 p.m.  

  • Funny how all this principle about "no bigots" never bothered Liberals so long as they had Wappel keeping a Liberal seat warm in the House. If he was such an inexcusable MP, why didn't anyone try to expel him earlier? The Canadian Alliance expelled Jim Pankiw and Larry Spencer. So why couldn't the Liberals turf Tom Wappel?

    By Blogger ALW, at 4:01 p.m.  

  • I'm sure if they tried hard enough, they could probably get rid of a few more So-Cons in the Liberal party. Why stop now?

    Keep going and you will soon have 'purified' the party.

    By Blogger Joanne (True Blue), at 4:27 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home