Taking the Coal out of CoalitionMar 30th, 2011 | By Carl Johnson | Category: Featured
After spending the first five days of the federal election campaign warning that a “Coalition” of opposition parties might exercise majority rule to keep the Conservative Party from completing its End-Times Action Plan, Steve Harper seems to have confused even his own cabinet ministers and closest allies.
In a campaign stop in Nova Scotia, Minister of War, Peter McKay said he totally endorsed the Coalition. “Without the Coalition providing some semblance of international legitimacy to cover up Canada’s war crimes in Afghanistan, we … no wait… sorry, which Coalition? I’m confused.“
Asked for his opinion of Conservative support for the Coalition operating in Libya, McKay said he had not been briefed on the file, but insisted that if the Prime Minister had approved it, then it was a good coalition.
McKay was leader of the Progressive Conservative Party when it merged with the Reform-Alliance Coalition of Canada to form the current Right-wing coalition that refers to itself as the Conservative Party of Canada. He had no comment on whether that coalition had been a good or a bad thing.
Meanwhile Conservative PR flaks scrambled to answer questions about Harper’s own support for a coalition against the Liberal government in the 1990s when he was chief ideologue of what was then considered a lunatic Right-wing fringe movement. According to conservative spokesman Dunning Kruger, what Harper advocated then was not a coalition but a “coalescence”, or a “conjoining of excrescences”.
Conservative insiders, speaking from a mysterious location they refer to as “background”, also took pains to insist that when Harper says that coalition is bad, he is not referring to “coal-ition” in the Alberta tar sands. Coal-ition, or the ignition of bitumen-drenched soil to create low-grade oil and environmental desecration, is currently the most important sector of the Canadian economy.