babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Tories Offered Cadman $1,000,000 for his Vote PART III

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Tories Offered Cadman $1,000,000 for his Vote PART III
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 04 March 2008 08:22 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Continued from here.

Just as long as you don't post it here.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 04 March 2008 08:35 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ezra Levant weighs in on the Cadman affair, basing his remarks on how he was treated by Harper, Flanagan et al. when he was asked to step aside for Harper back in 2002:

quote:
So as it became clear that a conflict over Calgary Southwest was coming, we put out feelers to Flanagan to see what consideration might be offered should I step aside. Would my nomination expenses be covered? Would I receive a paid position with the party? Would my personal debts be paid? Such crass inquiries were all but ignored by Flanagan, even as an embarrassing clash between us loomed in the media.

[snip]

I immediately asked: "What would be the reward if I step aside? What would be the punishment if I don't?" I expected that he might offer some basic indemnity for the money I had sunk into the campaign to date, or some token position with the party in recognition for the sacrifice he was asking me to make.

"If you step aside, my esteem for you will rise," he told me. "If you don't, my esteem for you will fall." That's it: no money, no job offers, just his respect and friendship.


According to Levant, making deals with pushed-aside candidates just isn't how the Conservatives do business under Stephen Harper, Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley.

Odd, then, that Greg Weston would remind his readers in the Sun of the following details:

quote:
[Former Conservative candidate Alan] Riddell successfully sued Harper and Conservative party for reneging on a deal to pay him up to $50,000 to step aside as the party's candidate in the riding of Ottawa South.

The party brass under campaign director Doug Finley wanted to hand the riding nomination to Allan Cutler, the former federal public servant who gained national attention as the first major whistleblower in the sponsorship scandal.

Riddell was reluctant to oblige, having spent much time and money to win the nomination.

On Nov. 25, 2005, Riddell and the Conservative party brass finally reached a formal agreement: He would stand aside in exchange for a party guarantee it would compensate him up to $50,000 for the costs he had already incurred.

[snip]

"The party does not have an agreement to pay Mr. Riddell these expenses, and Mr. Riddell has not been paid anything to date," Harper replied.

The courts ultimately found that Riddell absolutely had a deal, and ordered the Conservatives to pay up.


Despite the court judgment in Riddell's favour, I wonder how such a deal can possibly have existed with the Conservatives, given Ezra Levant's solemn assurances that such deals are 'not their style.'

From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 04 March 2008 08:44 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This entire episode is great fun to watch play out. We have the Cons maybe but we can't confirm nor deny this acting stupid. We have the Libs being stupid by throwing their parl priviledge out the window.

at a breakfast meeting today that had about 100 people those who were talking about this in the buffet line were almost unanimous that Dion made a terrible mistake by allowing the cons to shift the focus to the libs rather than keep the focus on themselves.

One former NDP MPP who was at the breakfast stated the obvious -- how is this any different than Belinda being given a Cabinet position in exchange for crossing the floor and supporting the same budget.

The irony is that both sides did the same thing during the same budget vote.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
duncan cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 43

posted 04 March 2008 08:46 AM      Profile for duncan cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unionist, I also think the NDP should ask the pm if he plans to step down while the police investigate, since it is a criminal inquiry.
Also, is it not crystal clear that the discussions, which were so offensive to Chuck Cadman, were about how to replace the income he would lose should his very own vote topple the government, and he find himself without a life insurance policy, and his income as an M.P. and not about the next election since a Conservative candidate had already been acclaimed in the riding!
The pm knew about the financial discussions, it is on tape. The reactions of the Cadman family indicate that Cadman was furious. This is a major scandal of the type never seen in parliament: bribing a member in exchange for a vote.
Harper making like Mulroney and suing is not going to stop it. When we hear Harped say that Dion had just made the worst mistake of his political career, does that not suggest that Harper's use of superlatives shows he knows Tom Flannagan and his friend have got the party and its leader in deep trouble.
James Moore is doing a good job on defence but he cannot do it alone. Harper needs to watch his back.
I have written about this and it should be on the front page today.

From: vancouver | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 04 March 2008 09:00 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by duncan cameron:
Unionist, I also think the NDP should ask the pm if he plans to step down while the police investigate, since it is a criminal inquiry.

Excellent - believe it or not I actually meant to include that in my helpful hint soundbite to Jack Layton, but I forgot.

That puts the NDP on the highest road and puts maximum pressure on Harper.

But first, they have to reassign Pat Martin to a file more suited to his general level of intelligence and culture.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 04 March 2008 10:10 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This time around its safe to say until someone explicitly says to the contrary, that Pat Martin is expressing policy and tactics disussed and decided in Caucus.

So take your low estimation of Pat Martin and apply it to the whole lot of them "on this file".


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 04 March 2008 10:17 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If Jack Layton were to ask Harper to step aside now it would risk putting him in the same category as the desperate Liberals.

Because there is no police investigation yet. And until the RCMP unequivocally say they pursuing it as a criminal matter, it is customary for people with a vested interest to be generally dismissed if they talk about it as if it already were a criminal matter.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 04 March 2008 10:21 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by duncan cameron:
This is a major scandal of the type never seen in parliament: bribing a member in exchange for a vote.

Well if it is then it is the second time this has happened regarding the exact same budget vote.

Is Martin offering a Cabinet position any better? Any worse? or the same? If it is just as bad then where is the cry for the investigation into Belinda being named a Cabinet Minister in exhchange for her crossing the floor to vote?

My 2 cents is that the RCMP should be investigating the actions of both the cons and the libs.

If Harper is asked to step aside then Dion better be asked for same thing.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 04 March 2008 10:31 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The difference is that a purchase of a vote was involved to affect the outcome of who rules in government. This ONE potential purchasing of a vote could have brought down a Liberal government and put Harper in power. Power power, power hmmm it's all about power!!!!!
From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 04 March 2008 10:38 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mary123:
The difference is that a purchase of a vote was involved to affect the outcome of who rules in government. This ONE potential purchasing of a vote could have brought down a Liberal government and put Harper in power. Power power, power hmmm it's all about power!!!!!

Umm Mary how is that different from 1 Cabinet position to keep someone in power?

ETA Belinda got roughly $70,000 bribe. This was in the form of a pay increase from MP to Cabinet

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 04 March 2008 10:41 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ETA this entire episode just shows that their is a lot of truth in the saying

Liberal Tory same old story

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 04 March 2008 10:49 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps Stronach's pro-gay and pro-abortion stance had something to do with things when she finally awoke to the fact that she was in a party of cavemen and decided to leave the social conservatives behind and serve her beliefs and her constituents properly.
If this was illegal why wasn't it investigated as well.

Regardless the NDP and the Bloc have a moral leg to stand on and should continue to complain about this whole murky and stinky Cadman affair.

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 04 March 2008 10:52 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree that the bloc and ndp have a good moral leg to stand on.

I do disagree that since we like Belinda's position that it makes it ok.

The fact remains that both the government and opposition used interesting methods to either kepp power or try to get into power.

They both did the same thing.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 March 2008 11:00 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All the politicians have to do is make sure that there is a long enough delay between the offer and the payment for services rendered. As long as there's no paperwork, they can then deny that there's any connection between the two. Lying, bribery and such is built into the Canadian political system.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 04 March 2008 11:01 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Is Martin offering a Cabinet position any better? Any worse? or the same? If it is just as bad then where is the cry for the investigation into Belinda being named a Cabinet Minister in exhchange for her crossing the floor to vote?

IIRC, there was a call for an investigation of the Stronach floor-crossing by the Ethics Commissioner from NDP MP Pat Martin. The Ethics Commissioner turned down the request.

In other post-floor-crossing fallout, the Conservatives' John Reynolds asked for an investigation by the Law Society of Upper Canada of David Peterson's role in negotiating Belinda Stronach's switch, alleging improper conduct.

Reynolds would, of course, go on to play his own key role in having David Emerson cross the floor to a cabinet seat after the 2006 election.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
duncan cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 43

posted 04 March 2008 11:24 AM      Profile for duncan cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Attempts at influence peddling, and exchanges of favours, are part of parliamentary life. So is crossing the floor when one disagrees with a decision made by your party.
The difference between Stronach and Cadman was she acted in plain view, and has faced the consequences. Cadman turned down an apparent offer of compensation for the loss of his insurance policy and salary, should he have provoked an election by voting against the Liberals. This offer was made in secret, involved money, and is against the law. Without the work of a journalist it would not have come to light.
Junkets paid by foreign countries, or dinner invitations, and hockey tickets paid by corporations, hospitality items, are matters of conscience for M.P.s. They are not straight offers to vote in such and such a way. Mostly, influence peddling was about campaign money, and election financing laws have curbed this substantially, though not entirely.
Accepting cash benefits in exchange for changing your vote is a criminal offence, and in forty-two years of following parliamentary matters, I have no recollection that anything quite like this has surfaced.
Harper could be toast. I am sure he wants an election just to clear the air before the RCMP gets into this.
BTW Ken S it would be appropriate to ask the pm to step aside until the police have completed their inquiry, or announce they have no evidence of wrong-doing. But, you may be right, that the NDP should wait until the police have made a public statement.
Since the NDP have emerged as the main opposition to Harper, it would be appropriate that they be the ones to ask him if he intends to step down, pending the outcome of the criminal investigation, it seems to me.

From: vancouver | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 04 March 2008 11:39 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Duncan I understand what you are saying about an offer made in secret etc.

But with the exception of Belinda crossing the floor and being sworn in which all of Canada saw. The negotiations between the Libs and Belinda were in secret, the offer was made in secret and guess what the reward was negotiated in secret.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
duncan cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 43

posted 04 March 2008 11:52 AM      Profile for duncan cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You are right, and the same holds true for Emerson.
The difference is that it is not a criminal matter to ask someone to cross the floor, join the caucus and vote with the new party. Obviously the newcomer perceives an advantage, the opposition are right to raise questions about motives; and, the floor crosser takes risks about re-election, ask Emerson. When people change parties they change whips and vote differently.
It is a criminal matter to bribe a sitting M.P. by offering monetary rewards to change their vote.

From: vancouver | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 March 2008 12:01 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a useful bit of clarity, dc.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
gantenbein
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11167

posted 04 March 2008 12:08 PM      Profile for gantenbein        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is there any evidence to suggest Stronach's floor crossing was contingent on an offer, and that she wouldn't have crossed without being named to cabinet? Until there is all we know is that she was rewarded for a move that she quite conceivably would have made for ideological reasons anyway (or do you think she needed the pay rise?). Are you suggesting that floor-crossers be excluded from consideration for cabinet just to avoid the appearance of an offer having been made.

I know it's been an NDP tactic to try to paint both the Libs and the Cons with the same brush, but if this is indeed effective, I fear it will not ultimately result in a mass shift of voters to the NDP. Stephen Harper and the Cons are always the first to benefit from a drop in Liberal fortunes.


From: Calgary | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 04 March 2008 12:16 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gantenbein:
Are you suggesting that floor-crossers be excluded from consideration for cabinet just to avoid the appearance of an offer having been made.


very simply? Yes.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 04 March 2008 02:14 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Belinda situation is different-- she was offered a job -- money in exchange for work. The job was contingent on her crossing the floor and joining the Liberals-- which is a reasonable stipulation. How she voted was not directly part of the arrangement. Her vote could, as a Liberal, be taken for granted since it is not a free vote. In this case the bottom line is consideration for work.

This was the offer of money for a vote -- not a job. It had nothing to do with an association or work Cadman would do. There was no party line to compel him to vote a certain way. Therefore the consideration that was to be exchanged would have been money for a vote. Now the question that has interested me in this is whether the money for the vote would still be an inducement under the criminal code if the money only matches the amount he would have had in voting the other way. Secondly -- did the money only match what he would have had in voting the other way.

Frankly, it is looking like it was not a match and now it is looking like the PM is not telling the truth about what he knew. Looks like the next election, just like the last, may be fought on an ethics scandal. Couldn't happen to a worthier bunch than the crew that came in pretending to be as white as snow. My suspicion is that the public will not have a lot of patience for Harper if he is found to be lying about this- he and his party would be screwed almost as bad as this country would have been if he had gotten a majority.

I think it is almost safe to rule out a Conservative majority any time soon right now. Thank you Chuck, wherever you are!


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Politics101
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8962

posted 04 March 2008 02:26 PM      Profile for Politics101   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
very simply? Yes.

So do you think of the same of the NDP here in BC where Glenn Clark rewarded Gordon Wilson with a cabinet position shortly after he crossed the floor and joined the NDP.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 March 2008 05:57 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
But first, they have to reassign Pat Martin to a file more suited to his general level of intelligence and culture.

How about Shadow Ministry of Maligning Muslims?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 March 2008 05:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Is Martin offering a Cabinet position any better? Any worse? or the same?

He offered her a cabinet position if she SWITCHED PARTIES. Not in exchange for a vote.

I know that switching parties would mean that she would vote with the Liberals on any upcoming votes and the timing would mean voting for the budget. But that's politics.

She was basically offered a job within the party if she joined it. That's way different than offering her a million dollars to vote a certain way.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 04 March 2008 09:12 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

He offered her a cabinet position if she SWITCHED PARTIES. Not in exchange for a vote.

I know that switching parties would mean that she would vote with the Liberals on any upcoming votes and the timing would mean voting for the budget. But that's politics.

She was basically offered a job within the party if she joined it. That's way different than offering her a million dollars to vote a certain way.


It wasn't a job within the "party" but a job on the public dime, to which one needs to be elected. The democratic election part of it is messy, but it is supposed to be the important part.

I'm not sure there's a need to split hairs to distinguish these cases at all. I think it's clear that this is all common practice, as Cadman said. Harper certainly 'forgot' it was illegal.

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: saga ]


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 March 2008 09:18 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is far from splitting hairs. As Duncan Cameron has pointed out, one is criminal and the other is not. Read his article.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 04 March 2008 09:30 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
This is far from splitting hairs. As Duncan Cameron has pointed out, one is criminal and the other is not. Read his article.

My mistake. I thought there was an issue of crossing the floor. thx

Interesting ... Harper can know there was an offer and that wouldn't be sufficient to convict him?

Oh please make him have to step aside!
Jim Prentice please.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 March 2008 09:35 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
saga: My mistake. I thought there was an issue of crossing the floor. thx

no problemo. If you read this thread carefully then you will discover that I made much the same mistake.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 March 2008 10:38 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
Oh please make him have to step aside!
Jim Prentice please.

How about the CPC in any form gone from being the governing party in Canada?! Though I am not surprised your admitting a CPC preference in governance finally.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 04 March 2008 11:23 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
How about the CPC in any form gone from being the governing party in Canada?! Though I am not surprised your admitting a CPC preference in governance finally.

Cripes no!! lol Are you serious? lol
I live in David Christopherson's riding. Why would I vote for anyone else?

What you sense is that I am not particularly partisan. I vote for people more often than parties and on some issues, I trust no politicians at all.

Just less 'punishment', more intelligence, more honesty in Jim Prentice. Better for all of us.

AND there is a much better chance of Harper stepping aside (soon!) than them leaving power. Every little bit helps.

I have my fingers crossed!

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: saga ]


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 04 March 2008 11:40 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:

I do disagree that since we like Belinda's position that it makes it ok.

Yup ... what he said.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 05 March 2008 12:23 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In this cae, choruses of "Liberals and Tories, all the same" is going to have the effect of helping the issue blow away in the usual roil and boil of what people see as the usual Ottawa confusion.

You should all be thankful the NDP has no inclination to follow that as a communications "strategy" on this issue.

And folks should take it in that getting this to stick on Harper is no slam dunk.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 05 March 2008 04:35 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
This time around its safe to say until someone explicitly says to the contrary, that Pat Martin is expressing policy and tactics disussed and decided in Caucus.

So take your low estimation of Pat Martin and apply it to the whole lot of them "on this file".


From the comments I heard Martin make, he seemed to be more concerned about how the Liberals were using this to their advantage than the affair himself. This concedes any ethical grounds on this matter to the Liberals. If he is speaking for the caucus, then shame on all of them.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 05 March 2008 04:39 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Politics101:
So do you think of the same of the NDP here in BC where Glenn Clark rewarded Gordon Wilson with a cabinet position shortly after he crossed the floor and joined the NDP.

Yes.

While I do not like it floor crossing is a way of life in a paliamentary system. Instant reward with Cabinet should not be allowed.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 05 March 2008 05:06 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
From the comments I heard Martin make, he seemed to be more concerned about how the Liberals were using this to their advantage than the affair himself.

I haven't yet heard anything that makes me think that. Granted, I don't seem to follow all MPs words as much as some people around here [I guess in part following from the fact I watch absolute zero TV]. Maybe make a specific reference to something he said or actions he took.

quote:
This concedes any ethical grounds on this matter to the Liberals.

Obviously I can't see this when I haven't seen the first part. But don't assume that mentioning instances of the first part is going to show the dotted lines to this second part.

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 05 March 2008 05:12 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
I haven't yet heard anything that makes me think that. Granted, I don't seem to follow all MPs words as some people around here [I guess in part following from the fact I watch absolute zero TV]. Maybe make a specific reference to something he said or actions he took.

I heard the clip on CBC Radio. He said that the Liberals were "desparate" as a means to use this to distract from their own problems. His excuse is that anything before the committee would be protected from prosecution by Parialmentary priviledge, which is a load of crap.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 05 March 2008 05:19 AM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just tuning in.. Did the Cadman beneficiary get the money?
From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 05 March 2008 05:27 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suggest you seperate those two statements A24.

In itself, there's nothing wrong with saying the Liberals are desperate. And you'd probably agree with that.

But you seem to also feel that partisan games with the Liberals is all its about with Martin.

I'm ready to be persuaded that picking over the entrails of this affair at the Ethics Comm. will not put prosecution possibilities at undue risk.

But I'm not going to accept you just saying it's crap. If you are thinking of the Mulroney affair- there is no comparison. Prosecution in that case is no longer possible, so there's nothing to lose.

I'd like to see this picked over at the Ethics Committee. But with the ability of the government to put limits at every turn, which turns it into a circus.... the doubbtful possibilities of anything useful happening there make it unacceptable to risk investigation possibilities.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 05 March 2008 06:02 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One little question. I heard this on the news this morning. If the Liberals are really as mad as they are stating they are over this.

Why did only 12 Liberals show up for the Budget vote?

Force an election on this issue.

Once again I fear it is because the Libs have identical skeletons in their closets.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 March 2008 06:34 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the answer is much simpler. It's because they can't win an election right now.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 05 March 2008 08:50 AM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My take on this Cadman affair is pretty simple. it seems like a cut and dry case. There are 3 witnesses’ that say a million dollar incentive was offered to Cadman for their benefit…that is a crown prosecutors dream come true. Count’ em … not One…not Two but Three witnesses.

Since when in Canada does the accused have any say against 3 witnesses? Can you imagine serial killers saying the witness’s don’t count or any criminal for that matter saying that? This is Canada; the accused is garbage till proven otherwise. The tongue locked and muzzled neocons I believe bribed that man…and they had 2 years to cover their tracks. The conservative party looks like an organized criminal gang and should be treated accordingly.

It gets worse in my mind as it appears that mr Cadman was a man of high moral integrity and the bribe stressed him to death if not actually shocking and stressing him to the point of worsening his health.at the bare minimum accelerating his death. Is this attempt at murder? Remember this is a government that guilt by association is king and capital punishment is what they crave. Perhaps that whole band of organized criminals should be charged…I dare you mr neocon to bring back the dearth penalty.

As far as the rcmp go …forget it they have there neocon plant firmly positioned and like I said they had 2 years to cover and manipulate the system, and they are. They are getting away with a lot more than bribery and high treason.

The liberals lost their window of opportunity they could have had Harper answering on a daily basis questions about his involvement in this crime. Could you imagine Harper on a daily basis answering ..” I didn’t know about the criminal behaviour”…” Me bribe someone”…”I knew and I was the head but I shouldn’t be responsible for the criminal actions of my party”..”The matter of my crime is before the courts”…” Accountability? What’s that”..etc etc. The libs would walk away with a majority ..boy did they screw up. They obviously didn’t remember the effect of the neocon friendly rcmp commissioner (Zak) announcing an investigation in the middle of an election campaign that turned the polls 360 degrees.

This cock and bull crap about believing Harper is just that…show me a politician that can’t lie with a straight face? Harper could tell me the sky is blue and I wouldn’t believe him. What is wrong with people?

Well a fish rots from the head down ..it should be interesting to see the next polls and see if the neocon media outlets that came to the accused defence pulled one over the Canadian people. I can’t see how supporters of this party can sleep at night, knowing how criminal they are. There we have it 2 governments in a row corrupt and criminal when will Canadians make the intelligent and smart choice?


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 05 March 2008 09:02 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are 3 witnesses’ that say a million dollar incentive was offered to Cadman for their benefit…that is a crown prosecutors dream come true. Count’ em … not One…not Two but Three witnesses.

Small detail. None of those 3 people were present for the alleged crime. They aren't witnesses.

It's not at all an easy case. It will require investgators with the will to look for, dig up and follow leads, and to push people for very fine inconsistencies.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 05 March 2008 09:31 AM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You got to be kidding me....Your telling me if you walk up to a cop and say "I know where the body is"..they say "go away you were not there when the crime happened". What kind of crap is that.

Think about it..that's the essence of investigation..you don't have to participate in the actual crime to be a witness to it. Bring in the stack of bibles and make them swear to tell the truth.

It's cut and dry and a proseceuters dream come true . I'll say it again " A fish rots from the head down" and the conservatives have only one way to go....and it aint UP.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
catherine-l
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14279

posted 05 March 2008 10:00 AM      Profile for catherine-l        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Buddy Kat:
the conservatives have only one way to go....and it aint UP.

Oh, how I hope you are right! Especially after reading about Flanagan's latest crowing on how cleverly Harper is hollowing out Canada so it would take a decade or more to fix again.

But on the point at hand, I agree with KenS, the three family members are not witnesses to the crime. Legally, I doubt there is much to go on. Even though on tape Harper appears to be openly admitting to a crime, I am sure he will eventually spin some reason why it sounds that way, but isn't, and the other Conservatives will get their stories in line with his. The beyond a reasonable doubt won't be proven, even though in an open investigation, most Canadians would conclude he is guilty.


From: ontario | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 05 March 2008 10:30 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can I assume you're talking about a mysterious meeting that is said to have taken place on May 17, 2005? Or are we talking about Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley who have confirmed that they met with Cadman on May 19, 2005?

I want to know what the people who were at the meeting have to say. What did they offer and who authorized the deal? I would like to get their story asap before the rest of the known facts are pulled together and they can tailor their story to what is already known.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 05 March 2008 10:57 AM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If Donna Cadman asked Harper whether he knew about the insurance policy, perhaps he could say "No" truthfully. He would be wise not to 'know' the details.

However, the insurance policy itself is not the issue. It is the fact of a bribe of any kind that is a crime, and Harper has admitted knowledge of that on tape. Not only that, but his explanation 'expenses for the next election' is ridiculous, not possibly true. Cadman was dying.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 March 2008 11:40 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well the CPC have decided finally how they are going to spin it.

"they offered Cadman the opportunity to run as a CPC candidate"

Completely ignoring the fact that Cadman wanted nothing to do with them, and that it took them a week to come up with this!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 05 March 2008 11:49 AM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Cadman was dying.

Not to defend the tories, but wasn't true that no one knew how much time he had left? No one could have known he would die 2 weeks after the vote.

Doesnt make the bribe attempt any sweeter, but the offer of expenses for re-election could be true


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 05 March 2008 11:52 AM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
If Donna Cadman asked Harper whether he knew about the insurance policy, perhaps he could say "No" truthfully. He would be wise not to 'know' the details.

However, the insurance policy itself is not the issue. It is the fact of a bribe of any kind that is a crime, and Harper has admitted knowledge of that on tape. Not only that, but his explanation 'expenses for the next election' is ridiculous, not possibly true. Cadman was dying.


Yes and witness's say the crime took place...I'll say it again you don't have to be participating in the crime just having knowledge of the crime is sufficient. Furthur , having knowledge of the crime and not reporting it is a crime in itself..hear that Liberals!

That they would involve an already stressed individual in there criminal activities knowing full well it may contribute to a speedy death is bad enough. So stressfull he couldn't take it to the grave he told 3 people...and not just any 3 people but the 3 that were closest to him.

Gawd those neocons are bad....just heard a blurb the tories are falling in the polls..and so are the libs. It's starting already! I think Canadians have finally seen some light....the libs aren't any better than the conservatives....putting their selfish power hungry desires ahead of the countries needs by sitting on their hands abstaining has backfired on them.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 March 2008 11:54 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bacchus, that is not how they are spinning it in today's question period, the CPC are stating it was an offer for him to run as a CPC candidate should he bring the government down.

Also, it was well known at the time, he was failing quickly, and in fact that it was not known whether or not he would even be able to make the vote.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 05 March 2008 11:56 AM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:

Not to defend the tories, but wasn't true that no one knew how much time he had left? No one could have known he would die 2 weeks after the vote.

Doesnt make the bribe attempt any sweeter, but the offer of expenses for re-election could be true


I don't think so. It was common knowledge that he was dying. They offered "financial considerations" in the form of a life insurance policy. That kind of tells the tale.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
catherine-l
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14279

posted 05 March 2008 12:07 PM      Profile for catherine-l        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kady O'Malley has an interesting column about the publisher doing a last-minute removal of the reference to the May 17, 2005 meeting before the book hits the stores. As O'Malley points out, Dona Cadman would know the difference between her husband coming home angry before the historic vote and coming home angry after the vote. Meanwhile, this would appear to allow Harper and his friends to only give information about a meeting on May 19 which may very well have been a meeting where large sums of money were not offered.

For standing by the dates, it appears that Dan Wallace was a key person and the fact that he would never confirm or deny Dona Cadman's account (he "recoiled like a spring" and would only say he trusted Dona) and now says he wasn't at the meeting and only knows of one meeting, obviously left some loose ends in Zytaruk's fact gathering.

historic rewrite

I see Dan Wallace now works for the Conservatives and was unavailable to the press for a while after this story broke. I guess it is not at all surprising where he came down. Too bad (for getting at the truth) that Chuck Cadman didn't have an assistant who was more independent from the Harper government.

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: catherine-l ]


From: ontario | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 March 2008 12:19 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The CPC carried on about this today, as well in QP, along with thanking the Liberals for their confidence vote on the budget last evening.

They would literally say, smugly after being questioned, the book is changing the dates and "thank you for your confidence vote on the budget last evening"


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
catherine-l
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14279

posted 05 March 2008 01:51 PM      Profile for catherine-l        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sounds like Duceppe got off a good line in the House today:

quote:
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, meanwhile, questioned the Conservative line of defence, given that the Conservatives had already appointed a candidate in Mr. Cadman's riding of Surrey North.

“That they could have told that candidate, ‘Hello, you are no longer our candidate and, by the way, we are replacing you with someone who has cancer and is in terminal phase,' it doesn't sound very credible,” Mr. Duceppe said.


[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: catherine-l ]


From: ontario | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803

posted 05 March 2008 02:44 PM      Profile for adam stratton        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Even with this change of date, the tape-recording of Harper's voice and his talk of compensation for loss are still there. Compensating Cadman for what if the offer was after the vote ?

The Conservatives are trying to burry the obvious with these sraws they are creating and grasping to.

But again, we had the the Somalia inquiry simply shut down and life went on for the power that was.


From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 05 March 2008 06:00 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
In itself, there's nothing wrong with saying the Liberals are desperate. And you'd probably agree with that.

Maybe, but sometimes it's important to set aside petty partisan differences to work together on something. Martin doesn't seem to grasp that.

quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
But you seem to also feel that partisan games with the Liberals is all its about with Martin.

I do. I know what I heard on the radio. Martin is known for his dislike of the Liberals. In fact, I think that if the tables were turned and the Liberals were accused of this, that Martin would be all over it "like a dog on a pork chop."

quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
I'm ready to be persuaded that picking over the entrails of this affair at the Ethics Comm. will not put prosecution possibilities at undue risk.

Martin's excuse on that point simply does not hold water.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 05 March 2008 06:50 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by KenS:
I'm ready to be persuaded that picking over the entrails of this affair at the Ethics Comm. will not put prosecution possibilities at undue risk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martin's excuse on that point simply does not hold water.


You were asked to put in something of substance and so far you are saying you don't want to bother.

We had a thread for the legions of folks with an animus to Pat Martin- which by the way in the final analysis I think he earns even if a lot of it is substantively lacking.

This is a thread about the Cadman affair. So persuade me and others why having people testify at the Ethics Comm is not going to put the possibilities of prosecution at undue risk.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 05 March 2008 07:18 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At the risk of derailing the discussion I'm going to bring over something I said in the slog Pat Martin thread.

The relevance here is the NDP urging that the new special prosecutor take up investigating the Cadman affair.

quote:
It's worth noting that the governemnt has been trying to run away from and sideline the Accountability Act ever since they trumpeted it.

And Pat Martin has doggedly pursued them on it.

Since governance issues that are not a scandal are not news to the media, neither Pat nor the NDP Caucus in general can be faulted for not getting attention to a decidedly un-sexy issue.

The biggest part of the reason that Pat doesn't get anywhere with holding the govenment's feet to the fire is that the Liberals have NEVER had an interest in ANY kind of Accountability Act.

I wonder why that would be? So Pat has a chip on his shoulder to them about that- another surprise.

And the Harper Crew trying to sideline their own act is because they've seen the light the Liberals always saw: when you are in government you don't want to deal with pests.

The positions Pat Martin takes that make him so popular on the left I don't like any more than the rest of you. But that doesn't colour how I look at the work people do.


I do not want to divert this thread into another discussion of Pat Martin. I saw no evidence in that discussion anyone changed their opinion somewhat towards Pat is maybe at least partly OK. I'm content to leave it that way.

Here's the facts we know about the potential for the special prosecutor taking this up.

1.] The mandate of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions definitely includes just such an affair. The office was created to pursue such investigations and possibly recommend prosecution.

2.] The Director is independent- he doesn't require a directive from the government or anyone else.

So, potentially at least, this is right up the Director's alley.

But it's also a new Office. I don't know how much in the way of direct resources are at the Director's command. And I think he may still be Acting Director.

I would hope the Director pursues this even if he has to commandeer sufficient investigative resources. The power to effectively compell answers from people under oath is worth a great deal just by itself.

[For example, Dan Wallace, Chuck Cadman's leg assistant, is obviously squirming under his spotlight. Apparently he has a job in the party now. But you can see him staying clear of potential perjury by what he will not talk about. You can see that in Harper for that matter. This is where the special prosecutor can go to work and get results.]

I know this is difficult for people because you are inclined to think anything Pat Martin is up to is grounds in itself for deep suspicion about what is going on.

But at least consider that the Leader and Caucus are very much behind Martin on this.

There are few people who know more about everything around the Accountability Act than Pat Martin. There might be no one else except a few who have staff positions with that as their responsibility.

The Director of Prosectuions certainly is not going to tell Pat Martin or any other MP that he would like to investigate the Cadman affair. but people close to the ground can draw their own reasonable conclusions.

It is possible that the NDP Caucus has good reason to hope that the Director will take this on.

Given the thin resources of the office, and that I think it has yet to formally take on any investigation- let alone a very hot potatoe like this... it will be a stretch if it is going to happen.

And maximum visisbility partisan posturing emanating from the Ethics Committe is going to make that stretch more difficult... let alone the potential that testimony at the Comm can prejudice prosecution.

There is no reason for people to assume that what the NDP is up to is all about keeping the Liberals away from the limelight.

The NDP Caucus is like the rest of us: they would dearly love to see Harper nailed on this.

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 05 March 2008 07:22 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
You were asked to put in something of substance and so far you are saying you don't want to bother.


This Torstar Article:

quote:
The Commons ethics committee is to consider Liberal motions tomorrow that it look into allegations that the Conservative party tried to buy off the late independent MP in 2005 in order to bring down the Liberal minority government.

"The Liberals have taken to this like a dog to a pork chop because they are desperate," said New Democrat MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre), who holds the swing vote on the ethics committee and will vote with the Conservatives, and against the Liberal and Bloc Québécois members, to block the committee from looking into the affair.

"We don't need a parliamentary committee to tell us whether it is right or wrong to bribe a member of Parliament. It is a fairly straightforward matter that doesn't lend itself to a study by a parliamentary committee," Martin told reporters.


Parliamentary priviledge:

quote:
Parliamentary privilege is very narrow, running to just a few key areas. The one relevant to this question is the freedom of speech accorded to all members of the House of Commons, all Senators and all witnesses before committees of either the House or the Senate. This freedom means that members may not be prosecuted (either criminally or civilly) for the comments they make. I should stress that it is prosecution for the comments which is barred. This seems to be the point at which Pat Martin's confusion arises. Any criminal act a member or a witness admits to can still give rise to a prosecution based only on the statements. All the freedom means is that you cannot face a civil suit (for libel, slander or defamation) or a criminal prosecution (for example on the charge of uttering threats) for statements made.

I can't see any way that privilege would operate as Martin suggests.

For those interested in the subject of privilege, the Parliament maintains a website on the subject here.


And Ken, I'm not motivated by an animus towards Pat Martin, as you suggest others are. I've defended Martin on this forum previously, but he has, IMV, demonstrated what at best can be described as a serious lack of judgement on this file.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 05 March 2008 08:07 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Appareently we're disagreeing on best tactics with a minimum of pounding of hobby horses. That's a refreshing change in itself.

Hre's something A24 said in en masse and linked above:

quote:
I'm not suggesting anyone try to bring down the government over this. What I am saying is that Martin has effectively given up the NDP's voice on this issue, and it allows the Liberals to look good while going after it.

I understand and identify with not wanting to give up a potential NDP voice on this. [As distinct from the position of unionist, and duncan cameron I beleive, that the NDP should stay away from this hot air.]

But I think the Liberals have effectively poisoned the air on this. I don't think there is apossible effective competition with them.

In fact, I think it's best to just let them have that game. Somebody needs to be the yapping poodle, and I frankly don't think they are getting alot of brownie points for it. Let em fill their boots.

Sure, the affair got them off the hook they were squirming on. But that's done whether or not they say a word on the Cadman affair. I don't think they are actually making themselves look good on this.

There is a real potential for them sticking their foot in it on this, and them fighting with the Cons over it with both getting muddied.

They deserve each other.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

quote:
I'm suggesting that Martin's dislike of the Liberals may have clouded his judgement and that he's more interested in playing politics on this point than actually finding out what went wrong.

On that last point I think you are just plain wrong.

It isn't mutually exclusive that Matrin is too fixated on troubling the Liberals, AND he's taking the most productive path on this.

And I don't think there's any question he wants to see the facts come out of the dark.

I understand the point about parliamentary privilege and that it certainly isn't guaranteed the Ethics Comm is going to get in the way of effective investigation.

But the Ethics Comm has proved to be a hopeless circus- even when the NDP and Liberals were to a large degree on the same page.

It isn't worth the risk that it will harm the potential for getting real answers. The media and the wider public stage are a better venue for public discussion of the facts.

And there is the problem I noted above: I know enough to know that it is going to be a stretch for the special prosecutor to take this one.

One of the Directors considerations- what any Director has to concern themselves with- is that the Harper Crew is gunning for them. They are only a budget knife from the Office never really getting off the ground.

The government isn't politically free to just wield that knife as they see fit. But it would be imprudent in the extreme for a Director of a still new Office with no established resources to not take the threat seriously. And he needs to pick his fights as prudently as possible.

A highly partisan free for all at the Ethics Comm would not make it easier for the Director to move on the Cadman Affair. A quieter Ethics Comm makes it more difficult for Harper to make charges of partisan bias stick when and if the Director does take this up.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 05 March 2008 08:32 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's something I posted elsewhere.

In his weasely statement, Cadman's former assistant Wallace says there was only one meeting with Flannagan and Findlay.

But no one said the other meeting was with those two. One thing Wallace and Harper and the others are doing is staying away from perjury charges by not addressing the real questions.

But it's a communication strategy too: they try to divert attention to where they are safe [the May 19 meeting with Flannagan and Findlay].

I see an implicit government end game here. Donna Cadman's email is going to the basis of the final story. Two Tory operatives who will get fingered for making some kind of offer, and a [thin] firewall between them and Harper's implicating words in that interview.

The firewall is that Harper is going to [after as much stalling and obfuscation barraging as possible] say that in the interview he was referring to the May 19 meeting and that the 'financial considerations' he is speaking of there are about Cadman's costs in an election.

This will be a scam obvious to those who follow closely. But the Harper Crew will bank on it being good enough for the masses who aren't political junkies.

They don't have a better option at any rate. But I think the odds are all too good that it will work well enough to keep the damage pretty limited.

This is why we need a real police / prosecutorial investigation. Harper is going to be able to sufficiently dodge and obfuscate on the public stage. But the special prosecutor can compell real witnesses to talk, who Harper can easily keep quiet if it is only questions in the wide open public sphere.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 March 2008 10:32 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OLn tonights late news, they said the book publisher is leaving the meeting prior to May 19th in, just not say the date as May 17th. And only say a meeting prior to May 19th.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
catherine-l
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14279

posted 06 March 2008 02:20 AM      Profile for catherine-l        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Remind, are you sure they said "before the 19th" and not "before the meeting on the 19th"? The latter, as reported in newspapers, doesn't rule out the 19th.

I must say the publisher, White, didn't sound too convinced of this new "information", but he received statements from the Conservative party and likely couldn't take the risk of a lawsuit. Dan Wallace had years to object to the date, as well as to the statement that he was at the meeting on the 17th, but only after disappearing for a few days when the story broke publicly, did the Conservative party (which he works for) issue statements on his behalf.

The meeting as originally stated was before the vote (and in BC) whereas the Conservatives say there was only one meeting in Ottawa the day of the vote so that Dona Cadman would have only been told after the vote. This, if true, really undermines her credibility, but so far she hasn't objected to anything the Conservatives have said and seems willing to think it was just a couple shady guys offering things with no backing from the party.


quote:
"It would be pretty deceptive for both the Conservatives and Dan Wallace to say what they're saying if in fact they're aware there were other meetings," White said. "But who knows? Politicians have played tricks before."

Conservative party headquarters provided Canwest with a statement from Wallace on Tuesday, that was dated Sunday, March 2. Wallace, who has not said anything about the matters except for two statements issued by the Conservative party, said there was only one meeting among the three men. It was May 19 and "I was outside that room and not privy to the details."


Publisher stops the presses to remove date


From: ontario | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Marg Bedore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9838

posted 06 March 2008 02:46 AM      Profile for Marg Bedore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thomas Mulcair weighs in
"They're trying to pound the table over an issue where the only person who actually knows what went on, who's unfortunately no longer with us, said there is no offer."

From: Kingston | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 06 March 2008 03:18 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Marg, Marg, Marg. When you learn that you HAVE to post links so people can check material you bring up?

You've misrepresented things so much in the past, that unless you back it up no one is going to believe you got it right.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 06 March 2008 03:23 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 06 March 2008 03:37 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On one of the pundit shows, someone said the Office of Public Prosecutions has not been established yet, and no one has been appointed to it.

[ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 06 March 2008 04:41 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Office is established. It does have some kind of budget. There is a Director appointed. I do not know if he is still Acting Director.

There is no question the Office is new and this would be an ambitious bite. But I seriously doubt it was ever intended they intended to carry out investigations primarily with their own staff.

So having to pull in investegators from elsewhere is not something new.

The difference of having an independent prosecutor with this as their mandate is that the Director is freer to tell the investigators "you are go here, and pursue these lines".

The intention of creating the Office was to place the Direcor as far as possible beyond the kind of indirect pressures police and conventional prosecutors are subjected to, and play a decisive role in their decisions what is "worth" pursuing and what is appropriate for them to pursue.

It would be great if this was a well established office. But even running on a shoestring if that is all it has, it's considerably more promising than the alternatives.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 06 March 2008 04:56 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I should amend my last post.

Explicitly: I don't know how far along the Office is to being a reality. All I know for sure is that some time ago an Acting Director was appointed.

It's possible that Pat Martin and Caucus know that it isn't likley that the Director has the resources yet to take this on.

I know it was one of the things that Martin has been dogging the govt on for at least a year [with no help from the Liberals]- one of the many fronts they've been dragging their feet on making the Act something more than rhetoric.

IF NDP Caucus knows there isn't much chance the prosecutor will take this up- and I'm just saying since I do not personally know, that's a possibility- then it is still useful for them to push for it.

Because then it's two birds with one stone. Maybe they can make it happen. And if it doesn't, its a chance to highlight what the foot dragging and secretiveness of this government have done.

As to what some pundit said about where the Office is really at in state of develoment: chances are they have less to go and than me, and are just repeating whatever the [probably dated] press corp rumour mill circulates about what is not hot [as this has never been].


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 06 March 2008 05:22 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
GOVERNMENT NOMINATES LITIGATION EXPERT TO LEAD PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE

Creating a Director of Public Prosecutions


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
catherine-l
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14279

posted 06 March 2008 05:31 AM      Profile for catherine-l        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Public Prosecution lays out its role on its website. Kady O'Malley highlighted this paragraph for their site:

quote:
The PPSC is not an investigative agency. It prosecutes when a charge has been laid pursuant to an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or some other police force or investigative agency of a violation of federal law. The PPSC provides advice and assistance to investigators at the investigative stage and works closely with them, particularly in terrorism, criminal organization, proceeds of crime, money laundering, market fraud, and mega cases.

Pat Martin must be pushing for the Cadman case to go to the PPSC if and when the RCMP presses charges. As I said previously, based on one piece of data (deciding to not pursue Mulroney case when $300K came to light), I am not confident of Harper's appointee to the PPSC, but perhaps others know more about him.


From: ontario | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 06 March 2008 05:50 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pat Martin must be pushing for the Cadman case to go to the PPSC if and when the RCMP presses charges.

No. It's an important bit better than that.

The RCMP does have to decide to investigate first. But there is a very low threshold for them 'looking into it'.

Where investigations dissapear is after that point... long before prosecution comes up, it is how vigorous the investigation is.

So this is precisely where the PPSC can be instrumental- it's really a matter of providing backbone.

The Office and Director certainly doesn't choose whether or not in the end charges are laid. But in practice, these kinds of prosecutions fall by the way side long before that point, and the PPSC can be the ones that get it over that hump.

I realize it's a tall order. But the alternative prospects aren't good.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 06:04 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marg Bedore:
Thomas Mulcair weighs in
"They're trying to pound the table over an issue where the only person who actually knows what went on, who's unfortunately no longer with us, said there is no offer."

If Mulcair said that (what's your source? Hansard?), then I'm proud of my MP. He got it right. More and more, I'm thinking Dion (not known as a rocket scientist) walked into a bit of a trap.

I'd like to repeat what I've said before.

The NDP should simply demand that the RCMP do their job and investigate this. Then they should keep repeating that "Mr. Harper is innocent until proven guilty". I know it's dirty, but it will keep public doubts alive about Harper forever, without needing to actually go out and find evidence.

[ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 06 March 2008 06:17 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

If Mulcair said that (what's your source? Hansard?), then I'm proud of my MP. He got it right. More and more, I'm thinking Dion (not known as a rocket scientist) walked into a bit of a trap.

I'd like to repeat what I've said before.

The NDP should simply say demand that that RCMP do their job and investigate this. Then they should keep repeating that "Mr. Harper is innocent until proven guilty". I know it's dirty, but it will keep public doubts alive about Harper forever, without needing to actually go out and find evidence.


I agree with unionist. As Warren Kinsella pointed out on his site, the libel lawyer Harper has hired (does anyone know if any taxpayer $$ is involved btw?) has never lost a libel case. I cant imagine he would take on such a high profile case without a guarantee of some type of evidence.


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 06 March 2008 06:22 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"He's never lost a case" would refer to those which have proceeded all the way through court.

But he would have literally dozens of others where his value is as a pit bull to threaten people- and nothing more.

And we have no reason to think there is anything more involved in this case.

I agree to some extent that the Liberals may well have overextended themsleves and are ready for a fall. But that can be true and at the same time Harpers libel threat is nothing more than a link in the chain of their complex communications strategy of obfuscation.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 06 March 2008 12:12 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
QP today had the Cons being evasive, stonewalling, and contemptuous in every one of their replies on the Cadman affair and NAFTA-gate (Brody-gate?). How much longer can this go on?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 March 2008 01:03 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
How much longer can this go on?

Until 2009, seeing as how the Liberals are propping the CPC up.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 07 March 2008 03:09 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don Newman suggested the Cons will try to ride out the present storms until the Easter break, hoping everything will go away when the House re-convenes afterwards.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 07 March 2008 07:04 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Liberals need money, organization and candidates. Witht eh Conservatives in this position you have to assume the Liberals will have a strategy of keeping the heat up as much as they can for a s long as they can to put together the elements of a campaign before pulling the plug. If in the meantime Dion can improve his personal image - which in this context is not impossible that woudl be a bonus for them. This is a huge gift for them.

The NDP of course would rather go now and not wait for a stronger Liberal party but it is possible that the time will actually do the NDP some good as well.

I think the opportunity for Harper's re-election may be passing. The Greens will also be a likely beneficiary of this-- Conservatives who are irritated by the Harper gang have shown a willingness to park there- it is even possible that in some rural ridings where the NDP and the Liberals have little strength the Greens could give the Cons a run for their money and possibly take a seat. In tighter races any Con bleeding to the Greens could give the Liberals and NDP some surprising gains. I am doubtful that this would affect the NDP-Liberal balance in contests between them because the Con support may run fairly equally both ways and in most of those ridings have a low Conservative vote anyway-


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
edgewaters72
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11649

posted 08 March 2008 12:00 AM      Profile for edgewaters72     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
QP today had the Cons being evasive, stonewalling, and contemptuous in every one of their replies on the Cadman affair and NAFTA-gate (Brody-gate?).

I think they're very defensive because this is really, really, really bad for them. Not just in terms of elections; I think the unity of the right is soon going to be in serious jeopardy (again).


From: Kingston Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 17 March 2008 06:51 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
(The wonderful) Kady O'Malley gives a link to a very interesting story by Stephen Maher on the Cadman affair. Check it out.

Still more on the Cadman affair

Maher outlines a "conversation" he had with someone present when the two men (allegedly) offered Cadman the million dollar insurance policy. The man in question is Dan Wallace, Cadman's EA, and Wallace wriggles like a snake to avoid speaking to Maher. Maher's conclusion?

quote:
It is reasonable to conclude that the Tories have put the fear of God into Mr. Wallace.

Maher points out that Cadman's biographer, Tom Zytaruk, whose book was released on the weekend, spoke to Wallace himself. "[W]hen he asked Mr. Wallace about Ms. Cadman’s allegation, he "recoiled like a spring.""

Uh huh. We have, further:

quote:
"I believe Dona Cadman as the day is long," Mr. Wallace told Mr. Zytaruk. "She has no interest in fabricating anything."

However, the current Conservative propaganda makes no mention of the meeting on the 17th of May, 2005, and claims only one meeting, on the 19th, in the name of Mr. Wallace - who isn't speaking at all and looks to be in fear of the Conservative God - took place.

Maher points out in his article that Conservative bag man, Art Hanger, who once "advocated flogging criminals", doesn't have nearly the same enthusiasm for investigating bribery allegations against members of his own party. Hanger fled the committee that he was the chair of rather than face a vote calling for witnesses to address this serious question of bribery of a sitting MP.

A good read.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 17 March 2008 07:11 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A good article, and it pretty well guarantees this matter will not be swept under the rug.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 17 March 2008 07:47 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The column is an interesting read.

I don't know that it matters any, but Maher did not say what you appear to be attributing to him in the first sentence below:

quote:
Maher outlines a "conversation" he had with someone present when the two men (allegedly) offered Cadman the million dollar insurance policy. The man in question is Dan Wallace, Cadman's EA, and Wallace wriggles like a snake to avoid speaking to Maher.

At any rate. There's no news here. It's good that some journalists still talk it up anyway- there is plenty known that hasn't been sufficiently mulled over in the public domain.

I don't see any convincing evidence one way or the other that this will get permently swept aside.

Interesting sidenote. Looks like Randy White subscribes to a similar surmise I have made. It may well be that Chuck Cadman was mistaken- that there wasn't the offer of a million dollar life insurance policy. And it may well be that Harper in the famous quote is referring to something that is not nearly that bad.

Whatever the case, the PMO does know exactly what happened. And the fact they don't want to fess up says initself that some kind of offer was made, and that the tracks will lead to Harper even if not as clearly as we have been thinking.

Randy White says we may never know what really happened. I would say that is certain, unless there is a vigorous police investigation. If the police are free to trace people's testimony freely to where it goes, those involved will no longer be able to evade and will know they are sure to be tripped up by someone if they lie.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 17 March 2008 07:56 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ken: Wallace was Cadman's EA at the time and not necessarily present during the conversation with the Conservative operatives. That's an important correction. However, present or not, Maher's conclusion that the Conservatives have "put the fear of God" into Wallace makes perfect sense.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
catherine-l
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14279

posted 17 March 2008 08:05 AM      Profile for catherine-l        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While Harper has his loyal (and/or scared) followers, not all Conservatives fall into this category. For those who really admired Cadman, and perhaps saw some of the operations of Reynolds and others, I can see why they would not want to simply stand by and watch the Conservatives dismiss the Cadman family's statements as the medicated illusions of a stressed out family (paraphrasing the latest Harper ally to speak out, Mol).

Harper appears to be doing a reasonable job, under the circumstances, of silencing the story with libel chill, committee stonewalling, etc. However, it may come to Harper either having to come up with something better than the medication and stress story, which will mean rocky times for the Cadman family, or having to distance himself from this, while allowing some investigation to go forward to look for possible "shady Conservative posers who did this without his knowledge or approval". The tape obviously makes the latter option tricky.


From: ontario | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 17 March 2008 08:38 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Harper appears to be doing a reasonable job, under the circumstances, of silencing the story with libel chill, committee stonewalling, etc. However, it may come to Harper either having to come up with something better than the medication and stress story, which will mean rocky times for the Cadman family, or having to distance himself from this, while allowing some investigation to go forward to look for possible "shady Conservative posers who did this without his knowledge or approval". The tape obviously makes the latter option tricky.

In my opinion, there isn't rally any libel chill, nor was it intended. Twisted as it sounds, I think suing the Liberals is just part of the communications strategy: standing pat on a few facts that make them look OK, and portraying critics as liars with an interest.

The possibility of pinning the blame on 'posers' is certainly possible. And by releasing Donna Cadmans memo they got to give this plausability without having to directly address it [which doesn't fit into the communications strategy].

But if they could pin the blame on someone else they would have done it.

I think that what we will see is continued stonewalling on those few facts, and what we will not see is strong an effort as they can exert without it coming into the open to make sure there is no police investigation.

I wish I knew more about the 'practical mechanics' of doing what can be done to force the latter drama out into open. The drama that is over making the investigation happen or not.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
catherine-l
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14279

posted 17 March 2008 09:24 AM      Profile for catherine-l        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

Twisted as it sounds, I think suing the Liberals is just part of the communications strategy: standing pat on a few facts that make them look OK, and portraying critics as liars with an interest.


Some communications strategy with a few pat facts!
Macleans picks apart the libel suit's description of the May 19th meeting, in light of what Flanagan wrote in his book.

They seem so intent on insisting that everything happened in that one 15 minute meeting just a couple hours before the vote, that they have abandoned all reason of what one could actually discuss in 15 minutes with a very sick man (by Flanagan's description) when what was uppermost on their mind (again, according to Flanagan) was how he would vote.


From: ontario | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 04 June 2008 08:06 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why would they revive this Shoot myself in the foot syndrome. Or to try to shift focus off of bernier. Oh look up politics for wednesday on CBC...the james moore interview should be shown nonstop during the election. What a tool. They figure the whole tape shouldn't be considered as evidence it should all be thrown out. They are sueing the libs, but not the author or publisher. Slap suits to keep it out of public domain. "Sorry the issue is before the courts we can't comment on it at this time." Stuff I guess.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 05 June 2008 03:40 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The timing might seem weird, and why would they bring it back, etc.

But it is consistent, and the timing makes sense.

They want the court case out there before the tape can be used in ads. They don't need to win. It becomes a public record of credible doubts cast on the tape and Zytauk.

Presumably they will make sure the case drags along long enough that the Liberals will get some libel chill effect. The Cons are not likely to win either suit, but in the event they did and the Liberals had gone ahead and used the tape in ads everyone sees despite the court cases, the damages would presumably be huge.

But I think the main reason is to fix however much doubt they can on the tape. If it only helps with a third of the people skeptical in both directions... that is a signicant gain for them.

IE, it isn't a matter of whether they actually convince anyone.

As to the timing, my guess is they were just waiting for the inevitable RCMP announcement of no basis for charges or further investigation.

But in the end, its another case of their nasty outfit trying to control the message in ways no one except the hard core supporters find acceptable. And it all has a cumulative effect even if people who are effected cannot point to individual actions/events they don't like.

And that is something this outfit just doesn't get. Just as likely that some of their brain trust does see the problem, but the contol freaks thing is just too ingrained for them to go at it any other way.

This may well be their biggest undoing: either win all the little battles or keep others from winning, but beat in the big contest that matters.

I see a similar thing in the tying up of parliamentary committees and the general extreme nastiness of current politics, and the two dynamics would be cognitively linked in the watching public.

Yes, the opposition parties share some blame, and are certainly also tarred by the public. But its the government of the day that really wears it.

Canadians have a natural inclination to think minority governments are better. But nobody is saying that anymore. Politics of all kinds and politicians in general all suffer the consequences.... but the government suffers the most. Same thing again: they can't seem to stop themselves from all the seperate steps they take that add up to them losing the battle for public opinion, even with the opportunity on a plate of inept Liberals and their hopeless leader.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Will S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13367

posted 05 June 2008 11:11 AM      Profile for Will S        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some opposition politicians are speculating it's a way to change the channel on the Bernier affair. That's what I thought initially when it seemed to come out of no where. But why remind people of a former scandal to deflect from a current one? Ken S might be right about the Tories trying to rum up libel chill. Still, as Leblanc says in the article, Dona Cadman's (still a Tory candidate?) affidavit is also not going away.

Tories try to change the channel


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 06 June 2008 09:17 AM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I’m not surprised at the latest neocon antics….It’s a lot better for Canadians to be talking about the million dollar bribe than the tory’s criminal and organized crime connections. Besides they have their planted big boss in the rcmp protecting them from domestic criminal acts.

Most (80%) of Canadians probably think the bribe affair is quite alright…after all dummy canuck will do and vote for anything for a buck. They live with bribery ..it’s the Canadian way. NDP supporters might want to take note of that…the majority of Canadians don’t give a crap about seniors housing or homeless people…it’s the Canadian way.

Now the fact that tory’s are involved with organized criminal gangs and leaking top secret nato plans to criminals all over the world ..that’s something Canadians won’t tolerate. Accountability and integrity have gone out the window.

In my opinion I believe the whole Afghan war was about opium production and international drug cartels anyways….that’s when the shit the fan…not 911 , but when bin laden stopped opium production. Isn’t it strange that Afghanistan after the west planted it’s puppet regime in Afghanistan that opium production went up…to record levels yet. I still get a kick out of Harper the days after he was elected going to Afghanistan delivering a speech on how Canadians are there to keep heroin off the streets of Canada……I wonder how he is going to accomplish that when he is leaking top secret info to gawd knows how many drug cartels and organized criminal gangs. Dummy Canuck will suck it up tho and swallow whatever joe neocon shoves down their throat.

The only way Canadians are going to get with the program is if a left media out there keeps pounding and pounding the “tory’s are corrupt bags of crap” message on a daily basis…like they did when the liberals got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

This is more serious as easily swayed , manipulated and gullible Canadians are being asked to sacrifice their childrens lives for a quick buck, while being fooled and tricked into believing it’s for catching bin laden (probably dead)…oh no it’s for liberating Afghanistan(puppet regime in place)…oh no it’s for the children of Aghanistan(depeleated uranium will kill them all)…oh no it’s to stop heroin(opium production at record levels)…oh no it’s to catch talibans(all dead and now imported from Pakistan))….oh no it’s to liberate woman( show me a neocon that gives a crap about womans rights and I’ll eat my shorts)……..oh no it’s to build schools(as they call in airstrikes when a person with a turban runs into one)….oh no it’s to train cops( as cops here get away with murder and investigate and exhonerate themselves)…oh no now it’s to do renovations, construction etc.

There has got to be point where Canadians deserve what they get…I mean there is a certain comicalness to stupidity but out right ignorance..there is no excuse for that.

So yeh the tory’s are wise to switch the channel to bribery.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca