I could not agree with Mr. Elmhirst any more: a byelection is the only way Mr. Emerson could redeem himself at this point.

He has apparently traded hundreds of hours tireless Liberal volunteers' valuable time, tens of thousands of Liberal donors' dollars, and the best and most admiring hopes of Liberals across the province for a Conservative cabinet post. He is indeed an honourable man. I know this from speaking and interacting with him, and from the feelings of many close friends of mine who worked on his campaign. But his conduct and explanations in the next few days will be the ultimate redeemer of that distinction, a trademark he's worn and used to earn the trust of Liberals and his constituents.

I do not have a major problem with Members of Parliament crossing the floor on the basis of significant differences on issues or with the direction of a party. Crossing the floor thirteen days after one party poured its guts out to get you elected is very unfair, and abusing the trust of the electorate is even worse.

I hope Mr. Emerson submits himself to the public in a byelection as soon as possible Anything less would be dishonest, and that's not the David Emerson most British Columbians know and admire.

Poor Jamie, and poor Mark Marisen. Not one of their happier days, I wouldn't think. And I am just dying to hear Ujjal's reaction!!!

Those looking for the next greatest level of pain over Emerson's move need only drop in on the various Tory Cabinet related threads on audra trower estrones william's Rabble.ca/Babble bucketshop. All the house Liberals there, such as RealityBites, are trying to pretend that it doesn't hurt, that it doesn't give the NDP the balance of power, that it's all in a day's political play, etc. The really hard core Grit trolls, like Maxx, are in shocked silence.

And of course, the former Rabble Editor Judy MacDonald, aka writer, has reminded posters of audra's recent decree that the word "whore" must not be used to denounce political party switchers, since that would be sexist and mysoginist. audra came to this momentous ruling when one of Rabble's partrons, Sen Buzz Hargrove, was ridiculed as "Whoregrove".

My personal guess is that in the next election Emerson will move over to Vancouver Quadra, where he actually lives, and that Stephen Owen won't be running again. In fact, Owen may be appointed to something big by Harper to clear the tracks.

The fact that Emerson increased his margin over Waddell in 2006 compared to 2004 can now be seen in retrospect. It's entirely reasonable to theorize that Emerson, in conjunction with both Grit and Tory party and ethnic group leaders in the riding, was practicing some classic BC coalition politics, ... keeping the NDP out, and making sure BC gets its fair share from Ottawa.

Pardon me, Braeden, but I think this kind of topic is best handled by the Liberal Party's Adult Auxilliary.

Let's keep it simple. he was getting used to the money, the perks, the power and the limo. so he jumped. Now we can call him a whore as many did when Belinda left the Conservatives.

The worst part about reading the comments section is being subjected to Budd's sophomoric game theory. It's painful to read his predictions for the future as every political development falls into some grand scheme or another. Really Budd - you do this every time and not once has one of your predictions come true.

I am one of the Emerson volunteers in 2004 and 2006 election and I have no problem Emerson is a Tory now. Actually I love it, it is priceless -- Mark Marisen is back stabbed by Emerson. wow, way to go Mr. Emerson.

It's almost comical now to think who the Liberals offered up as their straight-shootin' BC spokesfolks in the past election: David Emerson and Ujjal Dosanjh. Neither need ever be included in the same sentence again with the word "principles" -- unless it has "lack of" in front of it.

There goes Mark Merisen's star candidate. David Emerson was always a Socred/Tory, but Merisen thought he was a genius by converting him to the Liberal party.

It is a given that David Emerson is a well respected man, hope he is decent enough to appologize to hundreds of volunteers who worked for him in the last election, and would resign to force a Bi-election to run as a Conservative.

I hope Marisen's other star CONdidate, the two faced Ujjal will go back to his true home, the NDP.

Marisen has done enough damage to the Liberal Party, do the honorable thing like your former leader Paul Martin, just leave. Or MUD will just keep piling on Merisens face...

I would have voted for the Green party if I knew he was going to cross. I know it is probably good for my riding, but it feels like a punch in the gut. I voted for a Liberal NOT a Tory.

Elmhirst answered Homan's question well, about laws preventing crossing. it would be completely undemocratic to ban it.

Notice no one is calling Emerson a whore or bitch like they did Stronach.

I don't think a by-election is warranted either. Emerson will have to face the voters next election. This just shows why the voters need to look at the value of the candidate the first time round.

David Emerson got himself elected on false pretences. Recall him now!

Obviously Emerson has decided that he is not running again.

There is no way in hell that a Conservative would be elected in Kingsway.

Maybe they'll give him a riding in Alberta next time.

That is great, Ujjal is now THE lone spokesperson for the Libs in B.C., its good for team building.

Do you notice that any party Dosanjh goes to, he puts it ruins.

To Obscurantist:

Just a "thank you" for posting my thoughts to Babble. Anything to help audra and Michelle and RealityBites to understand that I don't accept that anything they put forward is valid or authentic. They're really a kind of frighteningly accurate reflection of the not-so-wonderful world of patronage-driven politics.

He was elected as a Liberal 14 days ago! Gawd, this is sick.

Looks like Conservatives and Reformers are just as upset about the Harper Hypocracy as everyone else.

Here is some commentary from the normally Conservative love-in FreeDominion.ca:

F250: "What a disgusting start to the new Tory government.

ABC™: "This type of hypocrisy is no way to show that you're going to fight a democratic deficit. I'm disappointed in the CPC." "They're being dishonest right now by not standing by their convictions. It took less than a day in government for this to happen. That doesn't set a good trend for the rest of their days."

jimmyr: "Yup, they screamed and hollered for changes when Stronach did it, but I guess it's OK once you're government. How positively hypocritical."

Heartofsong83: "disappointed with David Emerson's opportunism ...he should have to run a by-election first."

metallicat: "I am thoroughly disappointed in Stephen Harper allowing Emerson to cross the floor to the Tories."

leewgrant: "Two elected Tories miss out on the cabinet. One because of Emerson and the other because of Fortier. There are a lot of pissed off people in the CPC caucus right now."

Gordon Campbell has his fingers all over this. He must have told Harper that he needed someone who could properly do his bidding, and the other guys are just so stupid.

Budd, I appreciate much of your political analysis, even when I disagree with it. The problem seems to be that you can go from reasonably astute to near-delusional in a few sentences. You have a hate-on for the Babble website, and will try to spin anything into evidence that the site is a vast Liberal conspiracy, regardless of whether the facts support you or not.

People are saying various things about Emerson's defection on Babble, including the simple observation that this is an even more extreme example of what the Tories denounced Stronach for, consideration of how the NDP can make hay from this, and other comments. As for your claims that the Babble discussions show "the next greatest level of pain over Emerson's move", or a "frighteningly accurate reflection of the not-so-wonderful world of patronage-driven politics": huh? Where the heck do you get that from?

Although this is true enough:

"The really hard core Grit trolls, like Maxx, are in shocked silence."

Well in part, Obsurantist, you have answered your own question as regards the Maxx type operatives.

But consider too all the RB posts, in none of which does he lower by so much as one decibel his never-ending, screaming loud denunciation of innate Tory bigotry. Which according to him is to be constrasted, by any sophisticated observer, to the slight marginal tendency in that direction of a few, misguided Liberals. Talk about spin.

As for patronage, I am thinking now of the three people I mentioned, audra, Michelle and RB, and to some extent the other staffers. They have bills to pay, they need support, and it has to come from somewhere, and if it's not coming from the federal treasury then it's coming from those are blessed themselves by that treasury, one way or the other. If you don't believe me, fine. Tell me how rabble and babble are financed? Where are their financial statements?

RB is a classic example of patronage oriented politics. It's clear he's a Toronto attorney who is also gay. His expressed hatred of the Conservatives exceeds by several orders of magnitude anything that could possibly be explained by differences over gay marriage/civil union. What he puts forward is a transparently threadbare excuse for going after a certain party with a degree of vengeance that is simply incredible, so what's really going on? How do you explain that kind of vitriol? Simple, ... he's got some kind of federal or other Liberal related contract, retainer, whatever, and doesn't want to lose it. That kind of vehemence is, after all, invariably a function of income related perceptions and needs, not just an emotional difference of opinion.

And think of all the other babblers like Stockholm who've argued forever that the public won't accept any description of the Grit and Tory parties as being essentially similar. How are they processing this item? Why hasn't even one of them said this development argues in favour of greater similarity rather than greater difference?

Budd -- From the first Babble discussion about Emerson, here's a quote from Stockholm:

"The only winner politically in this is the NDP.
1. On their first day in office the Conservative get tarnished with what looks like a sleazy political pay-off where the will of the voters of Van Kingsway is being thrown in the garbage just two weeks after 82% of them rejected the Conservatives.

2. The NDP now has the math to be a balance of power.

3. The Liberals will be mute because this is Belinda Stronach in reverse. The NDP can make a big stink.

4. Van Kingsway now becomes an almost certain NDP pick-up in the next election."

And another:

"More from the Liberal/Conservative 'swingers club'!!"

And, from a more recent discussion on the cabinet in general, a quote from RealityBites:

"It's very simple. Haven't you been paying attention?

Conservatives are corrupt - just like Liberals.

Conservatives are crooks - just like Liberals.

Conservatives are utterly without principle - just like Liberals.

Conservatives are incompetent - just like Liberals.

Conservatives screw over their supporters - just like Liberals.

The only way they differ is that the overwhelming majority of Conservatives are also bigoted pieces of ****, while only a large minority of Liberals are."

Or maybe they're just saying that to cover their Liberal-shill tracks. The great thing about your theories is that when people say things that seem to contradict you, you can chalk that up as part of the conspiracy.

Classifying that FreeDominion bulletin board as conservative/reform is ridiculous.

The posters on that forum are unabashedly pro-lifer, anti-gay and in many instances, anti-Harper.

The most fanatical of the bunch is entirely welcome to screech on and on about filty sodomites and baby killers. The site owners are as rabidly extreme right-winger as their dozen or so paying members. UGH.

Conservatives? No way. The FreeDominioners are simply a mirror image of the Babblers Budd Campbell writes about.

Opposite ends of the radical political spectrum in Canada.

Agreed that the FD and Babble crowds need each other at some level, though I have to say that the genuine racism and in particular the unreconstructed hatred of gays and lesbians that I have seen on FD is really, REALLY shocking stuff. I cannot think of anything I have seen on Babble that is morally similar to that.

Obscurantist, I read both the Stockholm and RB contributions you quote and they are just the kind of thing I am thinking of. Stockholm has argued a million times that any NDP strategy that tries to paint the two older parties as essentially similar is doomed to fail since voters see big distinctions. There's no hint in the section you post that Stockholm sees this defection, or the earlier Stronach move, as in any way undermining the notion that these two established parties differ by large and meaningful amounts.

As for the RB post, again, everything boils down to just one thing, Tory bigottry, which really boils down in turn to just one thing, Tory homophobia, as opposed to bigotry in general. RB's angry, vituperative, relentless, obsessive, hammering of this one point, over and over and over, again and again and again, is clearly a function of something other than mere belief or opinion. That something else is income, specifically patronage income. One can plainly see this in other contexts, such as with the leaders of ethnic and aboriginal groups, who lined up solidly with the Liberals in this election, as presaged in a Georgia Straight piece by Terry Glavin. You can see it with Buzz Hargrove and Dave Haggard, and you can see it with all the federally funded gay activists in Vancouver Centre who mercilessly smeared Svend Robinson for being "too out there" and rallied for Hedy Fry, who got them all their contracts. It's no different with RB.

Also, one must remember, that the "outing" of RealityBites, on the Freedominion site, was quite off, to say the least. It was clearly a mis-prediction. But the man does attract his detractors, whether they be on FD, or whether they're Budd Campbell. In any case, the entire episode ended with the accusations being withdrawn. It was quite bizzare and somewhat funny watching the hysterical reactions of those who orginated the claim in the first place.

Oh, and Budd, just so you know, I think the "warnings" over "insults" like "whoregrove", or refering to people who cross the floor are ban-worthy on babble, just so you know. But those are the rules, there, and I don't particularly care.

As for Emerson, I suppose one could say it's a coup for the Conservatives. But if Emerson runs again in the same riding, he won't win re-election. If he runs again in a diffrent place, possibly, but nonethless it's quite funny how the Conservative Party has already managed to look hypocritical before even taking power and doing anything with it. With this, Zeisman, and various other things, the more things change, the more they stay the same. When I think of the Conservatives and Liberals the word "interchangeable" come to mind.

David Emerson's decision to cross the floor truly rocks the foundation of BC politics as we know it today.

This is wise decision by Stephen Harper to ask Emerson to be a member of cabinet and represent the City of Vancouver and strategically could be brilliant In the end Emerson will be an effective Minister of the Crown benefitting BC.

I look forward to the future with David Emerson and the Conservative government at the federal level and a Gordon Campbell provincial government serving BC.

I am obviously not happy with his defection, but since I defended Belinda Stronach's defection, I have little ground to stand on in attacking him. All I will say is at least Belinda Stronach waited 11 months and her defection had to do with legitimate disagreements with Stephen Harper. David Emerson defected only 2 weeks after the election making it look quite questionable. Also unlike Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison, David Emerson has no chance at being re-elected in Vancouver-Kingsway so he will lose his seat next election unless he moves over to another riding, which is what I suspect he will do.

RealityBites is who he is -- I have trouble seeing him as a Liberal promoter, because he seems to say whatever he thinks, regardless of who he might annoy, sometimes regardless of whether it's consistent with what he said on that topic or another. I'll just say that if he's trying to spin things in the Liberals' favour (whether on his own or part of a concerted effort), he's not doing a very good job.

That there are people on Babble who either openly support the Liberals, or disingenuously say various things that can be boiled down to "Ohmigod, the NDP elected a Stephen Harper government because they wouldn't just roll over and die!", is apparent enough. What doesn't follow for me is Budd's conclusion that the board is a Liberal propaganda organ run by Liberal supporters. A few people say things supportive of the Liberals, and a bunch of other people criticize the Liberals. They don't call it "Babble" for nothing. People don't get banned from posting for supporting any particular party, or for failing to support any particular party strongly enough. It's not a Liberal board, just as it's not an NDP or Green board, although a substantial minority or possibly a majority of people posting there seem to support the NDP.

The Buzz Hargrove ("Whoregrove") example you give doesn't demonstrate any kind of partisan bias. The idea is that you don't call people "whores" as an insult. That being the case, the criticism of Hargrove continues on Babble. People are being censored for their use of language, not for their political views.

As for Emerson, I would like to think this makes the Tories and Liberals both look bad, and that indignation will be more powerful than apathy in this case, but I fear that the public reaction will probably take the form of cynicism towards politicians in general.

Oh, and Budd, just so you know, I think the "warnings" over "insults" like "whoregrove", or refering to people who cross the floor are ban-worthy on babble, just so you know. But those are the rules, there, and I don't particularly care.

Thanks VK, but I can't follow what you're saying here, at least it's not entirely clear to me. You're saying you support audra's rulings, the babble policies are sound, but at the same time, you don't care? How does that work?

I think her rulings are silly and laughable, utterly insincere and totally arbitrary, but sytematically and rationally motivated by her intense Liberal partisanship, which is in turn motivated by various direct and/or indirect patronage needs. Sure she's officially NDP, but that's just the point, she's officially NDP just like Buzz Hargrove and Jim Stanford. And like those two honest social democrats, she also knows damn well what side the butter's on.

It's just a telling and amusing coincidence that it was an attack on Uncle Buzz that provoked that particular ruling, which when you think about it, is really pretty childish, overly protective stuff. Can't call a slut a slut, eh? Don't wanna be rude, huh? But RB is allowed to say what??????

Oh, I forgot, Michelle assured me that RB had actually been suspended, ... twice! (The way in which Michelle runs interference for RB and protects him is another little mini-chapter in the world of babble insiderism, favouritism, etc, but it doesn't in any way detract from the overall situation of effectively Liberal partisanship.) As for this RB outing thing you refer to on FD, I have no idea what that's about and really don't care. It's clear from the incredibly preferential treatment he gets from audra and Michelle that he's some kind of Rabble benefactor or else just some very major Liberal official who must be respected and allowed to do as he pleases, no matter what.

Honestly, who goes from being a Liberal to a Conservative. I can see boincing back and forth between the NDP and the Conservatives since we have the same goals in mind (crack down on crime and terrorism).

Is a sign that the Conservatives will govern just like the Liberals?

Looks like the NDP may yet be the ONLY party of the working man!

Ah, shucks, I'm not sure I wrote down this prediction, but I should have.

I knew it was blantantly obvious that Mr. Emerson had no desire to be a riding representative. He already took a paycut to become minister, had he been in the backbenches, he probably would have resigned in a few days. And so people are worried he parachuted into Cabinet??? Mt. Emerson, nah, no one has ever given him an easy ride before.

For all of the Liberals out there. Cry me a river and go and read MAchiavelli.

"And the first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding, is by observing the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them."

"Therefore, do not let our princes accuse fortune for the loss of their principalities after so many years' possession, but rather their own sloth, because in quiet times they never thought there could be a change (it is a common defect in man not to make any provision in the calm against the tempest), and when afterwards the bad times came they thought of flight and not of defending themselves, and they hoped that the people, disgusted with the insolence of the conquerors, would recall them."

The Buzz "Whoregrove" thing, is simply an exmple of what rabble/babble defines as innapropriate language. While I disagree with it, and think it's a perfectly fair insult, its with in their rights to define it as innapropriate to be said on their board and insist that people posting on that board not use that type of language or face a suspension or bann. If Sean Holman wanted to do something similar with public eye, it would be within his rights to do so as well. Essentially I'm saying, I personally will not get too worked up, as I'll say what I wish, where I wish, but if I wish to post at certain places I'll follow their rules. It's not as if they're insisting that people think certain ways, but on a message board the perameters of debate (ie: language) are set up by the owners. The 'net is a big place, I'm sure we can all get spout our views. As for RB, yes he has been suspended before. But one thing that I think should be pointed out, and I only pointed it out as you said this:

It's clear he's a Toronto attorney who is also gay.

End quote. That refers to a little brou-ha-ha on FreeDominion where a poster there made such a claim, but was proven to be incorrect.

Anyhow as to the actual topic, I can't say I've speaken to anyone who has been positive about this move. If Emerson is stupid, he'll run for re-election in Kingsway. But I think the internet sphere has pretty much poo-pooed that, it would be suicide.

Vansterdam Kid, perhaps we are just talking past each other.

Of course it's within the legal rights of the owner of an INet chat board to run it as they please, but that is hardly the point, especially for an avowedly left or progressive board where financial ownership is not often the greatest authority that immediately springs to mind. For a political chat board to impose the so-called "rules" audra does is a complete joke, ... that it's her legal right to do so has nothing to do with it. Babble's at best a joke, and at worst a scam, because audra and Michelle are completely insincere and totally biased in their intentional mis-interpretation and manipulation of their so-called rules. It's one "law" for insiders, another for everyone else. If you're critical of one of their house Liberals or Liberal-friendly NDPers, you'll be accused of fake offenses ("stalking", "following me into a thread", "heterosexism" etc.) and then eventually banned for non-existent prejudice, or for whatever other silly gimmick they cook up.

In case you haven't noticed, on slow days one of them will actually invent a fake poster, have this person say some outrageous things, usually in the feminist forum, and then have the fake poster they invented banned. Another triumph for audra!

audra and company are like a bunch of low-rent bartender types running a rough and crummy tavern in a seedy part of town. It's a real god-damned disgrace, and I have to admit to being rather ashamed of myself for spending so much time in the joint. But it's clearly a hangout that's designed to serve a certain very strategic purpose, to systematically handicap the NDP by getting a percentage of its activists to start consuming a diet of propaganda that makes it impossible for the party to move. It's basically a place for Liberals and Communists, plus a collection of gay and extreme feminist activists of the type described by Neil Boyd in his book Big Sister to basically weigh in on the NDP and put it into a "no solution" box.

If you don't believe me, fine. Read the two official commentaries by CAW *cough* economist *cough* Jim Stanford and Judy Rebick. These two pieces serve as archetypal bookends to the entire Liberal "vote strategic" dragnet. Rebick strongly condemns Layton for not being left enough, while Stanford condemns the NDP for not being powerful enough. Can you think of a single point that Paul Martin and David Herle would wish to add if they were asked?

As for RB, I based my comment entirely on what I have seen on babble. Some of his statements make it clear that he is probably a lawyer, or a law professor or at least a para-legal. He doesn't advertise himself as a lawyer ala Wilf Day and Jeff House, but he does make statements that presume a high degree of legal learning. I suppose it's theoretically possible that he might just be an informed lay person, but really, how is he supposed to be informing himself given that he now spends 20 hours a day on audra's bucketshop? As for him being gay, he say's so, and I assume that's accurate. I have not seen anything about him on FD because I haven't seen anything at all there in months, I find the place far too shocking and repulsive.

Well, Budd, I guess we'll have to let you keep Babble as one of your "cherished dragons." I'll just say that your description of the board, and of your own experiences there, is very different from my own understanding / recollection.

Fine Obscurantist. Tell me, what's your recollection. What did I do wrong, besides annoying audra's house Liberals and calling her and Michelle biased, which they really can't stand, because they are! You can easily Email me anytime you want to (budcampbell@hotmail.com).

Thank you Emerson for doing Vancouver, BC, and Canada a favour and moving into the Government benches. It truly takes a man of real courage and will to do the things he has done for the betterment of society.

Unquestionably he is the man for his portfolio. No one is better suited for the softwood lumber dispute.

And seriously, to all those groaning Liberals, how can you POSSIBLY cry foul - Dosanjh, Brison, Stronach! Give me a break.

And you know I think it is absolutely dispicable that the Liberals would try to fuck Emerson over like they have. Some may have niceties to say out front (ahem, Elmhirst), but come on, the leaked poll, the begging for the money back, etc. It's all just a concerted effort, most likely started by Marissen, to wish Emerson farewell.

Not a good year for the Marissen-Clark duo. Hopefully they will do politics a favour and get out.