Ralph Goodale keeps suggesting that because they did vote against, and plan to vote against bill C-48, the Conservatives are broadly against 'affordable housing, foreign aid, post secondary education and seniors'.
Does that mean that because the NDP voted for the original budget C-43, that the NDP is now for corporate tax cuts?
canadianna
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
The 'right' words
A Macleans headline from yesterday reads:
Renegade MP O'Brien was small-c conservative in Liberal party
When Belinda jumped ship, the media decided Belinda was a 'moderate' conservative, escaping an 'extremist' party -- but when O'Brien takes a walk, there are no questions about the extreme agenda the Liberal party is pushing.
It's so typical that O'Brien is labelled a small-c conservative, and people in the Conservative party who hold similar views are called 'social conservates' and 'the religious right' or 'right wing extremists' (or bigots, fascists, or homophobes).
canadianna
Renegade MP O'Brien was small-c conservative in Liberal party
When Belinda jumped ship, the media decided Belinda was a 'moderate' conservative, escaping an 'extremist' party -- but when O'Brien takes a walk, there are no questions about the extreme agenda the Liberal party is pushing.
It's so typical that O'Brien is labelled a small-c conservative, and people in the Conservative party who hold similar views are called 'social conservates' and 'the religious right' or 'right wing extremists' (or bigots, fascists, or homophobes).
canadianna
Book Tagged . . .
I've been book tagged by Linda at The Great Pumpkin, Civitatensis, and Victor at The Files of the Phantom Observer.
1. How many books do you own?
Impossible to count. I'd estimate two or three thousand. I cull them every once in a while, but everytime I go to toss some books, I end up buying more. It's fun to go through them all and rediscover old favourites hiding at the back of the shelves.
2. What was the last book you bought?
Pure Chance - The Memoirs of Dame Felicity Peake, first Director Women's Royal Airforce. Dame Felicity served at Biggin Hill during the Battle of Britain and later at Bomber Command. She was instrumental in ensuring that women in the Services were treated equally with men. I've long been working on a novel, set during WWII and at first I found there to be a derth of information available on the role of women in the Royal Air Force, but have since found many sources. Some are out of print, and I've been able to find them through ebay and Amazon shops. It is astounding to read the accounts of strong women who served their countries during wartime -- pre-women's lib, pre-feminism.
3. What was the last book you read?
Divorcing Marriage -- Dan Cere, Douglas Farrow
This book is a series of essays by educators, politicians, sociologists etc. discussing what the subtitle calls: Unveiling the Dangers in Canadas New Social Experiment
I have read books from the other side as well, like Discerning the Word by Paul Gibson.
As an Anglican, this issue keeps coming to the fore. I think it's important to try to hear both sides.
4. Which 5 books mean a lot to you?
Unlike most people have been tagged, the books that mean the most to me are almost all fiction. These days, I mostly read non-fiction, but the ones I treasure are ones I first read long ago and am now sharing with my kids. And, when I come across an author who can make me laugh, they go in my 'keep pile'
To Kill a Mockingbird - by Harper Lee. I first read this book in grade 8 and I've always loved it.
Anne of Green Gables - L. M. Montgomery.
To Say Nothing of the Dog - by Connie Willis. I've never been a big sci-fi fan, but my daughter bought me this book so I read it. I've ended up buying more of Willis' books because this one was so much fun.
Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis. I read this in highschool, and it gave me the best non-biblical understanding of Christianity that I've ever read.
C.S. Lewis: Always a Poet - The Rev. Dr. Roland M. Kawano. Father Kawano, an Anglican Priest in Toronto, is a friend. He allowed me to follow the process from manuscript to publication. It was an interesting journey.
5. Can you tag 5 more victims--er, interested bloggers?
I've picked six. Five amongst bloggers, one from Livejournal:
Elizabeth at purplefeltangel
Les at Spiderman's Web
Michael at The Blue Maple Leaf
Jason at Reasonable and Right
49erDweet at Minding the Gap
Charles at Peg City Kid
canadianna
1. How many books do you own?
Impossible to count. I'd estimate two or three thousand. I cull them every once in a while, but everytime I go to toss some books, I end up buying more. It's fun to go through them all and rediscover old favourites hiding at the back of the shelves.
2. What was the last book you bought?
Pure Chance - The Memoirs of Dame Felicity Peake, first Director Women's Royal Airforce. Dame Felicity served at Biggin Hill during the Battle of Britain and later at Bomber Command. She was instrumental in ensuring that women in the Services were treated equally with men. I've long been working on a novel, set during WWII and at first I found there to be a derth of information available on the role of women in the Royal Air Force, but have since found many sources. Some are out of print, and I've been able to find them through ebay and Amazon shops. It is astounding to read the accounts of strong women who served their countries during wartime -- pre-women's lib, pre-feminism.
3. What was the last book you read?
Divorcing Marriage -- Dan Cere, Douglas Farrow
This book is a series of essays by educators, politicians, sociologists etc. discussing what the subtitle calls: Unveiling the Dangers in Canadas New Social Experiment
I have read books from the other side as well, like Discerning the Word by Paul Gibson.
As an Anglican, this issue keeps coming to the fore. I think it's important to try to hear both sides.
4. Which 5 books mean a lot to you?
Unlike most people have been tagged, the books that mean the most to me are almost all fiction. These days, I mostly read non-fiction, but the ones I treasure are ones I first read long ago and am now sharing with my kids. And, when I come across an author who can make me laugh, they go in my 'keep pile'
To Kill a Mockingbird - by Harper Lee. I first read this book in grade 8 and I've always loved it.
Anne of Green Gables - L. M. Montgomery.
To Say Nothing of the Dog - by Connie Willis. I've never been a big sci-fi fan, but my daughter bought me this book so I read it. I've ended up buying more of Willis' books because this one was so much fun.
Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis. I read this in highschool, and it gave me the best non-biblical understanding of Christianity that I've ever read.
C.S. Lewis: Always a Poet - The Rev. Dr. Roland M. Kawano. Father Kawano, an Anglican Priest in Toronto, is a friend. He allowed me to follow the process from manuscript to publication. It was an interesting journey.
5. Can you tag 5 more victims--er, interested bloggers?
I've picked six. Five amongst bloggers, one from Livejournal:
Elizabeth at purplefeltangel
Les at Spiderman's Web
Michael at The Blue Maple Leaf
Jason at Reasonable and Right
49erDweet at Minding the Gap
Charles at Peg City Kid
canadianna
PM reaching out to knuckle-draggers
CTV is announcing that in order to placate the social conservatives (read: people of conscience, not knuckle-draggers) in his ranks, Paul Martin has agreed to make changes to Bill C-38.
They include:
- Stronger guarantees that Charter rights will not override religious freedoms
- Justices of the Peace who do not want to perform civil marriages of same-sex couples will not have to do so
- Churches are not required to rent out their halls for same-sex weddings
- Religious educational institutions will still be allowed to preach that homosexuality is against God's law, without being subject to hate crime laws
I wonder though, if same-sex marriage is a right, how these amendments will stand up under a Charter challenge.
The amendments don't go so far as to protect individuals who are not members of the clergy (such as Sunday School teachers, Youth Leaders, students, Lay Leaders and parents).
I don't think the same-sex lobby is going to be pleased with the proposed changes and I have no doubt that at the first opportunity, many of these issues will be brought before the courts.
canadianna
Monday, June 06, 2005
Standing Orders Don't Apply
Prior to Question Period, the Speaker of the House read a brief statement, advising that the Ethics Commissioner was investigating the recent goings on between the Member from North Delta and the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker asked that all members of the House refrain from questions pertaining this during the on-going investigation. The Speaker insisted that he would be vigorously enforcing this mor
Gilles Duceppe and other members of the Bloc asked several questions -- not directly to do with the tapes, but rather about Tim Murphy. Duceppe repeated the question more than once. He said that the Prime Minister had said in the House that no deal was ever offered, but that a deal was sought, and did the PM's Chief of Staff inform him that a crime was being committed, and why did the Prime Minister not call the RCMP.
705Tory talks about Question Period too, and quotes some of the answers given to this line of questioning. All of the answers had to do with the tape being altered -- never 'allegedly altered' -- and nothing to do with the questions Duceppe asked.
Not once did the Speaker intercede and tell the Liberals to stop referring to the tapes. Several times Duceppe told the Liberals he was not asking about the tape, but about statements made by the PM and other Ministers in the House last week. As their defense against the tapes, they had used accusations that Grewal was trying to sell his vote. Even the Prime Minister said that more than once. Duceppe only wanted an answer as to why they did not report this criminal activity. They answered by attacking the tape.
The Speaker abdicated his responsibilities today and allowed the Liberals to freely pass opinion on the authenticity of the tapes, based on the Globe & Mail's 'expert' analysis. Read Angry in the Great White North for details about this.
By now, with Grewal apparently self-destructing, it is likely that the tape issue will be dropped and nothing come of it. The real tragedy about this is that with each subsequent scandal, and each ensuing shrug from the media and the public, the Liberals get bolder and more aggressive. It's no longer even necessary for them to hide their dirty deeds because people seem quite willing to look the other way.
canadianna
Gilles Duceppe and other members of the Bloc asked several questions -- not directly to do with the tapes, but rather about Tim Murphy. Duceppe repeated the question more than once. He said that the Prime Minister had said in the House that no deal was ever offered, but that a deal was sought, and did the PM's Chief of Staff inform him that a crime was being committed, and why did the Prime Minister not call the RCMP.
705Tory talks about Question Period too, and quotes some of the answers given to this line of questioning. All of the answers had to do with the tape being altered -- never 'allegedly altered' -- and nothing to do with the questions Duceppe asked.
Not once did the Speaker intercede and tell the Liberals to stop referring to the tapes. Several times Duceppe told the Liberals he was not asking about the tape, but about statements made by the PM and other Ministers in the House last week. As their defense against the tapes, they had used accusations that Grewal was trying to sell his vote. Even the Prime Minister said that more than once. Duceppe only wanted an answer as to why they did not report this criminal activity. They answered by attacking the tape.
The Speaker abdicated his responsibilities today and allowed the Liberals to freely pass opinion on the authenticity of the tapes, based on the Globe & Mail's 'expert' analysis. Read Angry in the Great White North for details about this.
By now, with Grewal apparently self-destructing, it is likely that the tape issue will be dropped and nothing come of it. The real tragedy about this is that with each subsequent scandal, and each ensuing shrug from the media and the public, the Liberals get bolder and more aggressive. It's no longer even necessary for them to hide their dirty deeds because people seem quite willing to look the other way.
canadianna
Conservative Bashing
I know it shouldn't matter what an analysis in The Star says about Stephen Harper, because the paper is predisposed to being anti-Conservative. But I can't help but be irked when I read such vitriolic diatribes such as the one by David Olive on Sunday.
Olive's piece was headlined on the front page as follows:
David Olive on why children don't like Stephen Harper.
Can the Star get any more absurd -- that's as bad as the Globe's recent nonsense about Christians.
Olive's analysis takes several Harper quotes, and seeks to impute meaning to them.
When Danny Williams nudged Hearn and Doyle to vote with the government on the budget, Harper said:
"What's the next thing? We're going to have a bunch of mafia people working for the government because it might give Danny Williams money a week earlier?"
Olive suggests Harper was referring to Liberal MPs:
'Who are these organized crime figures on the public payroll? Carolyn Bennett? Ken Dryden? Right-to-lifer Roger Gallaway?'
Apparently Olive doesn't have cable, and hasn't watched any of the Gomery inquiry. Besides, the people he listed don't work for the government -- they are the government -- therefore they supposedly work for the people.
Olive says that Harper questioned the patriotism of Liberal voters a few weeks back, when he said voting for the Liberals is:
'quite frankly imperilling the future of the country.'
Harper is one of millions of Canadians who see the Liberal Party of Canada as corrupt, self-serving, anti-democratic and irresponsible. It stands to reason that if you view those characteristics as bad, you would see voting for a party whose foundations seem to have been replaced with these dubious pillars would tend to imperil the future of the country.
Olive seems to forget that during last year's election campaign and since, Paul Martin has openly suggested that anyone who votes Conservative is unCanadian.
This is a quote from Paul Martin from March 4, 2005:
We stood up for the Charter in the last campaign. We’ve stood up for it in this session of Parliament, protecting rights with the civil marriage bill while at the same time safeguarding religious freedom. Let me renew our pledge, my pledge, here before you tonight: We will always stand up for the Charter of Rights. I will always stand up for the Charter of Rights.
All of us here this evening, Liberals, are united – by an unshakeable belief in the values that have made our country one of the fairest, most respectful and most progressive in the world.
I am proud to follow in the foot steps of those who have come before – men and women whose great vision and hard work made the Liberal Party the party of multiculturalism and medicare, the party of bilingualism and the Charter, the party that led this nation in wartime and then committed it to keeping the peace.
Now, there are those in another political party who hold a different set of values. They too will be gathering for a convention this month. And Canadians will again be reminded, as they were during the election campaign, that the government and the opposition in Parliament – that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition – present two starkly different visions of what this country can be and where this country must go. The choice was clear during the election. The choice is clear today.
And when Scott Brison looked to the new Conservative party for modern Canadian values, and when he could no longer find them there, where did he turn? To the Liberal Party.'
There are times when I look around the House of Commons. At the Conservatives, a party that no longer calls itself progressive, and for good reason.
And, here's another quote from a speech by Paul Martin, from June 2, 2005 in Montreal:
'We do not share the Conservative ideology of every man for himself . . .'
'The person I cannot understand is Stephen Harper.
He doesn’t appear to realize that his underhanded dealings with Gilles Duceppe are threatening our country’s stability.
We know that he wanted to take part in the Iraq war and re-open the anti-missile shield file, and that he does not believe in protecting the rights of all minorities, but how to explain his common agenda with the separatists?'
Martin's quotes all tend to suggest that as a conservative, my values and my patriotism are suspect. As Prime Minister, Martin has a responsibility to represent all of us, not just Liberal voters. His comments are insulting and disparaging to all who continue to vote Conservative.
How convenient are the memories of Liberal journalists.
canadianna
Olive's piece was headlined on the front page as follows:
David Olive on why children don't like Stephen Harper.
Can the Star get any more absurd -- that's as bad as the Globe's recent nonsense about Christians.
Olive's analysis takes several Harper quotes, and seeks to impute meaning to them.
When Danny Williams nudged Hearn and Doyle to vote with the government on the budget, Harper said:
"What's the next thing? We're going to have a bunch of mafia people working for the government because it might give Danny Williams money a week earlier?"
Olive suggests Harper was referring to Liberal MPs:
'Who are these organized crime figures on the public payroll? Carolyn Bennett? Ken Dryden? Right-to-lifer Roger Gallaway?'
Apparently Olive doesn't have cable, and hasn't watched any of the Gomery inquiry. Besides, the people he listed don't work for the government -- they are the government -- therefore they supposedly work for the people.
Olive says that Harper questioned the patriotism of Liberal voters a few weeks back, when he said voting for the Liberals is:
'quite frankly imperilling the future of the country.'
Harper is one of millions of Canadians who see the Liberal Party of Canada as corrupt, self-serving, anti-democratic and irresponsible. It stands to reason that if you view those characteristics as bad, you would see voting for a party whose foundations seem to have been replaced with these dubious pillars would tend to imperil the future of the country.
Olive seems to forget that during last year's election campaign and since, Paul Martin has openly suggested that anyone who votes Conservative is unCanadian.
This is a quote from Paul Martin from March 4, 2005:
We stood up for the Charter in the last campaign. We’ve stood up for it in this session of Parliament, protecting rights with the civil marriage bill while at the same time safeguarding religious freedom. Let me renew our pledge, my pledge, here before you tonight: We will always stand up for the Charter of Rights. I will always stand up for the Charter of Rights.
All of us here this evening, Liberals, are united – by an unshakeable belief in the values that have made our country one of the fairest, most respectful and most progressive in the world.
I am proud to follow in the foot steps of those who have come before – men and women whose great vision and hard work made the Liberal Party the party of multiculturalism and medicare, the party of bilingualism and the Charter, the party that led this nation in wartime and then committed it to keeping the peace.
Now, there are those in another political party who hold a different set of values. They too will be gathering for a convention this month. And Canadians will again be reminded, as they were during the election campaign, that the government and the opposition in Parliament – that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition – present two starkly different visions of what this country can be and where this country must go. The choice was clear during the election. The choice is clear today.
And when Scott Brison looked to the new Conservative party for modern Canadian values, and when he could no longer find them there, where did he turn? To the Liberal Party.'
There are times when I look around the House of Commons. At the Conservatives, a party that no longer calls itself progressive, and for good reason.
And, here's another quote from a speech by Paul Martin, from June 2, 2005 in Montreal:
'We do not share the Conservative ideology of every man for himself . . .'
'The person I cannot understand is Stephen Harper.
He doesn’t appear to realize that his underhanded dealings with Gilles Duceppe are threatening our country’s stability.
We know that he wanted to take part in the Iraq war and re-open the anti-missile shield file, and that he does not believe in protecting the rights of all minorities, but how to explain his common agenda with the separatists?'
Martin's quotes all tend to suggest that as a conservative, my values and my patriotism are suspect. As Prime Minister, Martin has a responsibility to represent all of us, not just Liberal voters. His comments are insulting and disparaging to all who continue to vote Conservative.
How convenient are the memories of Liberal journalists.
canadianna
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Media Interference
Why on earth would any responsible news agency hire 'independent expert' analysis of tapes that could be evidence in a criminal investigation?
Why, when the analysis is completed, would that news agency release the results to the public as though the conclusions drawn were fact?
By now, you've all read or heard this (edited):
Experts say Grewal tapes were altered
Last Updated Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:00:47 EDT CBC News
Two audio experts have independently concluded that the secret recordings made by MP Gurmant Grewal were edited.
John Dooher, a forensic audio engineer hired by CBC News, said Thursday there is a "crude" edit and something "amiss" about a section of tapes made by the B.C. member of Parliament.
His conclusions are supported by Stevan Pausak, one of Canada's leading forensic-sound analysts. Pausak was asked by Canadian Press to carry out a similar examination. He said one of the tapes has an abnormal break, indicting (sic) a section may have been cut out.
The CBC does not indicate in their report that their experts weren't examining the original tapes, and the omission of that significant information, leads the reader to assume it is the originals which were examined. Canadian Press to their credit, notes (late in the piece) the Conservative statement of the same day, that the gaps were made in transfering the originals to CDs for use on the Internet.
More than being an oversight, CBCs exclusion of this detail in their initial reporting of this, is extremely prejudicial.
At the time of their news reports, the original tapes had been handed over to the RCMP, but there are no reports that the RCMP ever asked for the tapes. Questions abound as to why the Conservatives did not hand over the tapes from the beginning, but I wonder where was the initiative of the RCMP? Within days of the existence of these tapes being made public, the RCMP was formally asked by the Bloc and the NDP to launch an investigation. They were aware of the tapes, but never asked for them. Although the RCMP is now 'reviewing' the tapes, there is still no formal investigation.
Conjecture over the authenticity and integrity of the tapes is spin when it comes from the Liberals. It is expected that they will vigourously defend themselves. But when the CBC or Canadian Press reach beyond their scope as reporting agencies to begin acting as investigators -- prematurely drawing conclusions where none can credibly be drawn -- and announcing those conclusions as truth -- they cease to be reporters of news and become tools for the Liberal government.
This whole story about 'tape doctoring' began with Liberal accusations, and rather than let the RCMP do their job, two media outlets (with ties to the government) couldn't wait. Instead, they took it upon themselves to ascertain the 'truth' -- only it is not truth they have provided -- simply speculation, dressed up to look important.
With all the gnashing of teeth over the importance of waiting for the truth with Gomery -- one would wonder why these two agencies would jump the gun rather than waiting for the RCMP and/or the Ethics Commissioner to do their jobs.
I had always believed that journalists were in the business of reporting the news, not making it -- and certainly not making it up.
canadianna
Why, when the analysis is completed, would that news agency release the results to the public as though the conclusions drawn were fact?
By now, you've all read or heard this (edited):
Experts say Grewal tapes were altered
Last Updated Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:00:47 EDT CBC News
Two audio experts have independently concluded that the secret recordings made by MP Gurmant Grewal were edited.
John Dooher, a forensic audio engineer hired by CBC News, said Thursday there is a "crude" edit and something "amiss" about a section of tapes made by the B.C. member of Parliament.
His conclusions are supported by Stevan Pausak, one of Canada's leading forensic-sound analysts. Pausak was asked by Canadian Press to carry out a similar examination. He said one of the tapes has an abnormal break, indicting (sic) a section may have been cut out.
The CBC does not indicate in their report that their experts weren't examining the original tapes, and the omission of that significant information, leads the reader to assume it is the originals which were examined. Canadian Press to their credit, notes (late in the piece) the Conservative statement of the same day, that the gaps were made in transfering the originals to CDs for use on the Internet.
More than being an oversight, CBCs exclusion of this detail in their initial reporting of this, is extremely prejudicial.
At the time of their news reports, the original tapes had been handed over to the RCMP, but there are no reports that the RCMP ever asked for the tapes. Questions abound as to why the Conservatives did not hand over the tapes from the beginning, but I wonder where was the initiative of the RCMP? Within days of the existence of these tapes being made public, the RCMP was formally asked by the Bloc and the NDP to launch an investigation. They were aware of the tapes, but never asked for them. Although the RCMP is now 'reviewing' the tapes, there is still no formal investigation.
Conjecture over the authenticity and integrity of the tapes is spin when it comes from the Liberals. It is expected that they will vigourously defend themselves. But when the CBC or Canadian Press reach beyond their scope as reporting agencies to begin acting as investigators -- prematurely drawing conclusions where none can credibly be drawn -- and announcing those conclusions as truth -- they cease to be reporters of news and become tools for the Liberal government.
This whole story about 'tape doctoring' began with Liberal accusations, and rather than let the RCMP do their job, two media outlets (with ties to the government) couldn't wait. Instead, they took it upon themselves to ascertain the 'truth' -- only it is not truth they have provided -- simply speculation, dressed up to look important.
With all the gnashing of teeth over the importance of waiting for the truth with Gomery -- one would wonder why these two agencies would jump the gun rather than waiting for the RCMP and/or the Ethics Commissioner to do their jobs.
I had always believed that journalists were in the business of reporting the news, not making it -- and certainly not making it up.
canadianna
Thursday, June 02, 2005
The Tale of the (Mishandled) Tapes
The Conservatives dropped the ball on this one.
I don't believe the tapes were doctored, but the suspicion is out there and a lot of people have already started with the 'a-ha!s'.
Libs, who have been largely silent until now, are posting comments all over the place suggesting Harper and Grewal resign because of the 'disgrace' they have brought to the political process. And people who are not inclined to care about politics either way, just find this very boring or mildly amusing -- but the accusations of tape-tampering will linger in their psyches. Even when the Conservatives are cleared, it's like when a man is accused of rape and subsequently exhonerated -- there are people who will always believe he must have done it, but got off on a technicality.
The Conservatives have a lot to answer for with this -- not the 'alleged' doctoring (funny how they were 'alleged' transcripts, but no such modifier used by Libs today). They should be answering to their supporters for fumbling so badly.
The tapes should have been handed over immediately. Waiting may have allowed them to catch the news cycle as they saw fit, but it has obviously been a PR disaster.
They are trying to play the same games as the Liberals, and they are amateur hour. People don't want the spin -- they want the truth. It would have been much better to do the information dump than the tease. People get ticked off when you mete out information at a trickle. They start to feel they're being manipulated. The Libs (masters of manipulation) know all the ploys -- they invented them. They've been five steps ahead of the Conservatives from the getgo.
If the Conservatives had played it straight instead of being coy to keep the headlines, maybe it would be the Libs in the spotlight and on the defensive.
Liberal strategists are masters of the game. Regular people don't want games anymore, but when given the choice, they'll pick the winning team -- not because they believe in them -- but because the other guys look like losers.
Honesty and integrity in government begins when we dispense with 'tactics' and 'strategy' and start talking the talk and walking the walk. Otherwise, the Conservatives are nothing better than less-successful hustlers than the Liberals.
canadianna
I don't believe the tapes were doctored, but the suspicion is out there and a lot of people have already started with the 'a-ha!s'.
Libs, who have been largely silent until now, are posting comments all over the place suggesting Harper and Grewal resign because of the 'disgrace' they have brought to the political process. And people who are not inclined to care about politics either way, just find this very boring or mildly amusing -- but the accusations of tape-tampering will linger in their psyches. Even when the Conservatives are cleared, it's like when a man is accused of rape and subsequently exhonerated -- there are people who will always believe he must have done it, but got off on a technicality.
The Conservatives have a lot to answer for with this -- not the 'alleged' doctoring (funny how they were 'alleged' transcripts, but no such modifier used by Libs today). They should be answering to their supporters for fumbling so badly.
The tapes should have been handed over immediately. Waiting may have allowed them to catch the news cycle as they saw fit, but it has obviously been a PR disaster.
They are trying to play the same games as the Liberals, and they are amateur hour. People don't want the spin -- they want the truth. It would have been much better to do the information dump than the tease. People get ticked off when you mete out information at a trickle. They start to feel they're being manipulated. The Libs (masters of manipulation) know all the ploys -- they invented them. They've been five steps ahead of the Conservatives from the getgo.
If the Conservatives had played it straight instead of being coy to keep the headlines, maybe it would be the Libs in the spotlight and on the defensive.
Liberal strategists are masters of the game. Regular people don't want games anymore, but when given the choice, they'll pick the winning team -- not because they believe in them -- but because the other guys look like losers.
Honesty and integrity in government begins when we dispense with 'tactics' and 'strategy' and start talking the talk and walking the walk. Otherwise, the Conservatives are nothing better than less-successful hustlers than the Liberals.
canadianna
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Paul Didn't Call
Michael at The Blue Maple Leaf gives a good account of Harper's questioning of the Prime Minister during Question Period today. Harper was really able to pin him down and Martin looked foolish trying to climb out of the quicksand.
Another interesting question came from Gilles Duceppe. The Prime Minister had just said, more than once in reply to Harper's questions, that: Grewal approached, no offer was made -- an offer was solicited, the member from North-Delta asked for rewards but no deal was made. Duceppe got up, and it looked like he was uncertain that he was going to be given the floor. He had already asked his questions near the beginning of QP and this was closer to the end.
He said to the PM (and obviously, I am paraphrasing a translator): You have just stated (the above). You say now that you knew that Grewal approached, you knew that he asked for some consideration in exchange for crossing the floor -- it is against Section 119 of the criminal code for an individual to ask for something in exchange for his vote, and yet you didn't call the RCMP when you knew this crime had been committed. Why did the Prime Minister not call the RCMP?
Of course, Martin didn't stand up. Anne McLellan got up and went on and on and on about how if anyone knew about a crime they should report it, and if the member knows about a crime of course he should go to the RCMP . . . blah, blah, blah.
canadianna
Another interesting question came from Gilles Duceppe. The Prime Minister had just said, more than once in reply to Harper's questions, that: Grewal approached, no offer was made -- an offer was solicited, the member from North-Delta asked for rewards but no deal was made. Duceppe got up, and it looked like he was uncertain that he was going to be given the floor. He had already asked his questions near the beginning of QP and this was closer to the end.
He said to the PM (and obviously, I am paraphrasing a translator): You have just stated (the above). You say now that you knew that Grewal approached, you knew that he asked for some consideration in exchange for crossing the floor -- it is against Section 119 of the criminal code for an individual to ask for something in exchange for his vote, and yet you didn't call the RCMP when you knew this crime had been committed. Why did the Prime Minister not call the RCMP?
Of course, Martin didn't stand up. Anne McLellan got up and went on and on and on about how if anyone knew about a crime they should report it, and if the member knows about a crime of course he should go to the RCMP . . . blah, blah, blah.
canadianna
Grewal didn't want to be Inky Mark
I am inclined to think Grewal's motivation for taping conversations with Murphy and Dosanjh is irrelevant.
Maybe Grewal did intend to cross the floor. If that is so, why didn't he? There is every indication that had he abstained in budget vote, that he would be on his way to Cabinet in the government -- because as Dosanjh said: 'Cabinet is easy'. So, if that was his desire, Cabinet within the government -- and Murphy obviously didn't say no -- in fact, he all but said yes -- then why didn't Grewal jump at the chance?
If we look at the situation in context, and remember what happened with Inky Mark, then maybe Grewal's assertions have more credibility.
Grewal says he was approached a few times, and declined. That would give him an opportunity to be prepared that it might happen again -- Murphy or Dosanjh might have said: 'don't say no just yet, we'll let you think on it'.
Given that Inky Mark publicized what he characterized as an approach by the Liberals for his vote, and that Inky Mark was swifty and summarily dismissed by both the Liberals and the media -- Grewal's decision to tape the conversations is more clear.
Had Grewal told anyone that the Libs were courting him, their response would be 'why would we want him -- he's (conveniently) under investigation for graft'. He would have been mocked and ridiculed in the same way Inky Mark was, and he would likely have been disbelieved.
However 'wrong' it might have been for Grewal to tape these conversations, the fact remains that there would have been no way to corroborate his accusations. It would have been the 'he said/he said' that the press is trying to make it now.
Rather than playing the 'they're both just as bad' game, the press and the public should demand more from government representatives like Murphy and Dosanjh. They are in positions of power and influence and their abuse of public trust is clear. Grewal getting it on tape, didn't make it so.
canadianna
Maybe Grewal did intend to cross the floor. If that is so, why didn't he? There is every indication that had he abstained in budget vote, that he would be on his way to Cabinet in the government -- because as Dosanjh said: 'Cabinet is easy'. So, if that was his desire, Cabinet within the government -- and Murphy obviously didn't say no -- in fact, he all but said yes -- then why didn't Grewal jump at the chance?
If we look at the situation in context, and remember what happened with Inky Mark, then maybe Grewal's assertions have more credibility.
Grewal says he was approached a few times, and declined. That would give him an opportunity to be prepared that it might happen again -- Murphy or Dosanjh might have said: 'don't say no just yet, we'll let you think on it'.
Given that Inky Mark publicized what he characterized as an approach by the Liberals for his vote, and that Inky Mark was swifty and summarily dismissed by both the Liberals and the media -- Grewal's decision to tape the conversations is more clear.
Had Grewal told anyone that the Libs were courting him, their response would be 'why would we want him -- he's (conveniently) under investigation for graft'. He would have been mocked and ridiculed in the same way Inky Mark was, and he would likely have been disbelieved.
However 'wrong' it might have been for Grewal to tape these conversations, the fact remains that there would have been no way to corroborate his accusations. It would have been the 'he said/he said' that the press is trying to make it now.
Rather than playing the 'they're both just as bad' game, the press and the public should demand more from government representatives like Murphy and Dosanjh. They are in positions of power and influence and their abuse of public trust is clear. Grewal getting it on tape, didn't make it so.
canadianna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)