Bush to meet with Harper ?!?!

[SomthingsGotaGive]

Is there any precedent for such a meeting with the leader of the opposition?

[montanacowboy]

1. Don't know, but they are two of a kind

n/t

[rurallib]

2. Precedent?

Shrub don't care 'bout no precedent! He can do what he wants cause God appointed him!
Will Shrub be introducing God to Mr. Harper at this meeting, ya think?

[iverglas]

3. imagine

what the response in the US would have been if Martin had met with Kerry when he was in DC earlier this year ...

Martin did meet with Congressional leaders on both sides, but steered well clear of any appearance of partisanship when it came to the presidential candidates. Senators Biden and Lugar, as senior representatives of the two factions in Congress, were both involved in talks Martin held in Washington.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:xOkD5q5B-sQJ:www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040430.wxmartin30/BNPrint/Front/+%22paul+martin%22+biden+lugar&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Bush's visit is not the same thing. Bush is visiting as a head of state (executive branch), not a head of government (legislative branch). Because Martin is head of government and a member of the House of Commons, and *not* head of state, it is appropriate for him and other parliamentarians to meet with congress members when he visits the US, as well as to meet with the head of state and government, the president.

If Bush were to visit Canada as a head of government (say, for some multilateral meeting attended by heads of government), it would be appropriate for him to meet with parliamentarians.

But now hmm. I suppose one might say that Bush is received by the Gov Gen when he visits Canada as head of state, and therefore that if he is going to meet with the PM, a parliamentarian, he should also meet with the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

In fact, I may have just persuaded myself of this. Such a meeting may actually emphasize the parliamentary nature of our govt, and the fact that Martin is *not* our president.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041129.wbush1129/BNStory/National/

Travelling with his most senior advisers, Mr. Bush will first pay a courtesy call to Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson on Tuesday. He will spend the rest of the day meeting with senior government officials, setting aside time to speak to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

So yup, actually, I think it's appropriate. The despicable Stephen Harper is no better reason for a visiting head of state not to pay appropriate respects to our Parliament than the despicable Arnold Schwarzenegger is to restrict the US presidency to native-born citizens. ;)

[SomthingsGotaGive]

4. nice reply

If I were harper I'd decline the invitation.

Be like the Tory leader in the UK and pick up huge support.

[iverglas]

5. hahaha

This will undoubtedly be the high point of Harper's life.

If *you* were Harper you wouldn't be a moron asshole. But then, if you were *Harper*, you'd be a moron asshole.

What I'm not entirely sure of is whether meetings between a visiting head of state and Cdn parliamentarians should be private/secret. I think I'm entitled to know what my faithful servants are getting up to.

In that respect, I'd have to agree that when the PM meets with a visiting head of state, s/he does so as HM's representative (or more properly, "advisor", as head of Cabinet, the "active committee" of the Privy Council, which Harper ain't in) and gets to do so in private, to discuss matters of state, as it were. Not so Harper. If he wants a private audience with somebody else's head of state, i.e. Bush, he should have to get an invite to Crawford as a private individual.