CTC & Wells point out what a fraud the "search" committee was: Coyne missed it.
Spector recalls that The Friendly Stooge/Fool (take your pick) has never deigned to explain how he could have been so awfully charmingly bafflingly (Coyne's word) incurious and accommodating to the CPC in his terms of reference at the time, not in the two years since, nor at his GG presser, despite being, according to Coyne, quite the fine erudite canny fellow: Coyne overlooked Spector's point.
Baffling, that, eh? This terribly decent chap works for Govt dime, gives a baffling decision, and proves his good faith in the matter by NEVER EXPLAINING A DECISION RECOGNISED BY ALL AS "BAFFLING", unless one thinks, hey, maybe it isn't all that baffling, if the point was to do a dirty job and get out of town, only to return as GG, and beyond such irksome partisan minutiae, so now never will have to explain. But he's of good faith all the same, Coyne's sure of that. Pity it's all so BAFFLING, though, eh?
Salutin quotes Tom Flanagan on Harper's political attitude to this as in all matters “(he) thinks about these things all the time.” Coyne never read that far down.
Travers highlights obvious risk to (perception of) GG impartiality by naming someone who has taken govt dime, done as CPC desired so much they wish they could have paid him more, if and when Johnston has to make a controversial decision. Coyne, again, got distracted and missed end of column.
Maher writes: "It is fair to note, though, that Johnston’s report worked out well for Harper, allowing him credibly claim that he was taking the advice of a respected academic working at arm’s-length. Now Harper has given Johnston the most coveted prize he has to give." Coyne avoids the regional papers.
Climenhaga points out: "At any rate, the Harperista cheerleaders in the gutter press repeat claims about Johnston's lack of partisanship so assiduously that one cannot avoid the thought the media doth protest too much. After all, these are the same people who shout huzzahs to the prime minister's frequent calls for an elected Senate -- then smile benignly as he packs that august body with grubby Tory pork-barrelers." Coyne avoids the irksome left-wing media with its inconvenient questions.
Spector, who is often a bad faith jerk himself, but a jerk who understands Canada and the workings of government about a billion times better than Coyne ever will, notes today, as anyone with any understanding from the inside knows: "And it’s precisely that enthusiasm for burying a matter as serious as the Airbus scandal that made him, in Stephen Harper’s eyes, the perfect non-partisan to deal with the knotty constitutional issues that our next Governor-General may be called upon to adjudicate." Look people, you can't expect Coyne to actually read knowledgeable commentators in full before expressing his own incoherent 'bafflement' - he'd never finish a column otherwise, poor overworked chap.
As a result, Coyne's baffling conclusion is less baffling - whereof one does not know, thereof one cannot speak intelligibly: 'But in this case a reasonable person would conclude there was neither quid, nor pro, nor quo.'
In other, good, news, I've just learnt that FIFA has decided that Coyne has all the qualities they look for in a world cup referee.
Andrew Coyne, such a very very reasonable person when it comes to elite consensus.
That's not baffling at all.
Coyne, simply answer this: would Johnston likely be GG were it not for his work on the Terms of Reference? If not, what does that imply?
No comments:
Post a Comment