Saturday, May 17, 2008

A Moment of Silence for Cadscam

Like the dozen other scandlettes that hit the Harper Tories this spring, it looks like this one will quietly slink away. I do think that there are still a plethora of unanswered questions around this but Harper can just say "the RCMP has cleared us of all wrong doings" (even if that isn't completely accurate) and there's not much anyone can say to counter that.

It's a shame because, unlike many of the other areas where opposition parties have been scratching for blood, it really does seem like there was something here.

Labels:

38 Comments:

  • Good news for Liberals. They can put Cadscam behind them and focus on pushing their policies.

    They can start by promoting their new carbon tax that will raise gas prices ever higher and be incredibly unpopular with the public.....

    Hmm, on second thought, maybe the Libs should keep focusing on distractions from their unpopular policies.

    By Blogger Mike514, at 10:35 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Scott Tribe, at 11:56 AM  

  • Gasoline prices will not go directly up Mike.. but nice try. I see the Cons. parrots have their talking points.

    I also don't agree CG, that Cadscam will go away. The NDP has said it wanted the RCMP to complete its investigation before it would support bringing it to a committee vote... so now that the RCMP has said it wont lay charges (unsurprisingly - I think everyone could have predicted the RCMP would conclude this), the NDP, and more specifically Pat Martin, should now have no reason not to support the Committee that looks into these affairs to do so. So if they do change their minds, then the issue remains alive - as it should. Karl Rove never got charged for outing Valerie Plame, but that didn't make it any less worse. So too should this affair be investigated, despite a police force who's impartiality some observers wonder about declaring they won't charge anyone.

    And, if the Cons. have nothing to hide as they claim, then they should have no reason to impede this investigation, and to tell Art Hangar to allow a vote on this rather then continually fleeing the room every time this issue gets brought up.

    By Blogger Scott Tribe, at 11:59 AM  

  • the "something there" you want to find was, to quote the RCMP, "no evidence"

    No as in nada, zero, zilch.

    Some scandal.

    And since Steffi libeled the PM, the real fun will begin as he is forced to skank out and apologize.

    Publicly.

    Gotta love a fake scandal when the stink sticks to those who invented the fake scandal in the first place.

    Karma's a bitch.

    By Blogger Fred, at 1:06 PM  

  • Yeah Fred, you're totally right. That audio tape of Harper is a fake, and Cadman's widow is so totally a liar.

    By Anonymous Saskboy, at 2:14 PM  

  • It's a shame because, unlike many of the other areas where opposition parties have been scratching for blood, it really does seem like there was something here.

    The real shame is that all the Liberal supporters have to support is the chance of one of their "scandals of the day" sticking to the Conservatives.

    It's too bad that you can't report on anything constructive that the Liberal Party of Canada has to offer Canadians.

    Scandal, Smear, MP's Personal lives, this party should worry a lot more about working for Canadians rather than their self serving agenda.

    Mind you, after the next election, they won't have to worry about that anymore.

    By Blogger Platty, at 2:18 PM  

  • Scott: If a corporation is taxed, it will do everything it can to download (or transfer or whatever the word is) those fees to the consumer. This means higher gas prices.

    I'd love to focus on Liberal talking points, but unfortunately they don't address higher gas prices. "Look, there's no plan right now" is about the extent of the Liberals' explanation of its new carbon tax scheme.

    Please indulge us with Liberal talking points, and let us know how, if a corporation is taxed, it will not immediately dump those fees onto the consumer.

    By Blogger Mike514, at 2:22 PM  

  • I do have to admit I find it so amusing that the obamaniacs who told me Clinton's plan to tax oil companies to fund a holiday was dumb because the oil companies would raise gas prices are now telling me that taxing the oil companies is not gonna raise gas prices...

    carry on

    By Blogger Antonio, at 2:27 PM  

  • Love that Phatty in-joke...

    "The real shame is that all the Liberal supporters have to support is the chance of one of their "scandals of the day" sticking to the Conservatives...
    Scandal, Smear, MP's Personal lives, this party should worry a lot more about working for Canadians rather than their self serving agenda."

    Of course, you're refering to the good ol' days of Reform-Alliance-Con's in opposition, who never saw a scandal it couldn't ride for a few steamy-faced TV sound bytes (take actually budget and spending figures and multiply times two, no matter how incorrect and out-of-factual they are)...
    As to smearing, don't look in the mirror because you're tinfoil is crooked. Like your warped sense of logic.
    But don't worry. Canadians are seeing your skankiness at work and will return you to the good ol' days of opposition soon. You can then proceed to eat your young as you usually do.

    By Blogger burlivespipe, at 3:53 PM  

  • whatever you're putting in that pipe is screwing with your brain burl.

    Chretien was the most corrupt pol of the last century and he didnt go to jail...he did however lose the whole of western canada and most of Quebec.

    So unless someone figures out how to turn Toronto into 150 ridings the libs are on the outside for the foreseeable future.

    Harper will be the PM for at least another 5 years, get used to opposition.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:29 PM  

  • Regarding the carbon tax... some points. Firstly, it is a tax on carbon emissions not gasoline use (I presume). The gas tax is separate. Alberta and Newfoundland will only be hard hit insofar as drilling for oil is an emission-intensive activity (Ontario is much more likely the big loser from a carbon tax).

    Secondly, it is a revenue neutral tax - the revenues would be used to lower corporate and income taxes. Thus it is only emission-intensive goods that would go up in price. Non emission-intensive goods could well become cheaper (because higher profits either spur companies to expand production - requiring lower prices - or because of market entry by new firms attracted by above-normal rates of profit).

    Thirdly, corporations do not just raise prices by the amount of a tax when their costs go up. It all depends upon how competitive the industry is (are there a lot of players), and how elastic demand for the good is. With gas, you don't have a lot of alternatives (at least in the short term), so they can raise prices without abandon. Likewise with tobacco taxes, since people can't immediately quit smoking. That is why those activities are good sources of tax revenue (similarly, the trans-siberian railway was built with a vodka tax). A carbon tax, which hits a wider cross-section of companies would not necessarily have those same qualities. For instance, cars are pretty income elastic, and carbon-intensive to make. The price of cars likely wouldn't go up very much since the auto-makers are already having a hard enough time unloading what they make.

    Incidentally that last point is why a carbon politics is bad politics in the midst of a possible recession in Ontario (where 40% of the economy is linked directly and indirectly to the auto industry), just as Ontario is being passed by Newfoundland.

    By Blogger hosertohoosier, at 5:15 PM  

  • Too bad! We'll have to hope that a witness like Shreiber shows up later. Otherwise, harper will get off like Chretian.

    In the meantime, there's the in-out fraud. No shortage of documents or witnesses there.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 6:24 PM  

  • "Regarding the carbon tax... "

    Bit off topic for a thread about cadscam?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 6:26 PM  

  • As to smearing, don't look in the mirror because you're tinfoil is crooked. Like your warped sense of logic.

    And the logic should be, keep making up the "scandals" until one works??

    Hey, keep talkin' though, I'm sure if you say it enough times, it'll start sounding logical to you.

    Maybe you should go have a little lie down now, a cool dark room will make the voices go away...

    ===

    By Blogger Platty, at 6:39 PM  

  • I do have to admit I find it so amusing that Antonio "I don't took my ball and went home" DiDomizio who vigorously supported Ignatieff and literally cried when he lost would be criticizing a carbon tax when Ignatieff (who Antonio adored) had a carbon tax in his leadership platform.

    But ok Antonio you go ahead and continue to try and poke holes at anything Dion does just because you can't get over your guy losing. I would think you could at least be consistent though.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:01 AM  

  • Some people seem to take Clinton's loss personally. I hope that we haven't been betting. Anyway, we should take defeat in a sporting manner.

    I've done an analysis on the November election based on Real Clear Politics numbers. You're find it three threads down in "Two Americas One Endorsement".

    Hope that the framework will help you analyze the odds.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 12:04 AM  

  • "It's a shame because, unlike many of the other areas where opposition parties have been scratching for blood, it really does seem like there was something here."

    This is disappointing to read. CG, you are one of the least partisan Liberal bloggers out there...based on what you've seen so far from Harper and the Conservatives, does it really seem to you that Tom Flanagan and Ian Brodie, two of the saaviest political operators in Ottawa, would try to cook up something like what the Liberals were alleging? And even worse, that Harper would admit to knowing about and authorizing such a thing, knowing he was on tape???

    You're one of the few to give credit to the Conservatives' political smarts...it's a bit surprising and disappointing to see you actually believed that the brightest bulbs in the party would try something so...amateurish.

    By Anonymous john g, at 12:49 AM  

  • hi anonymous person,

    I support a carbon tax, because I do believe strongly if oil companies gouge people simply because their margins are hurt, the government can probably make them pay dearly.

    Same reason I thought the tax holiday in the US wasnt a terrible idea.

    I have never been against a carbon tax, but keep smearing me. I am used to it.

    Dont forget who was against a carbon tax two years ago and "had always been against one".

    my comment in this thread was aimed at the people who used one argument to bash hillary clinton and are reversing their logic simply to defend Stephane Dion.

    Either the oil companies raise the cost of gas when they are taxed more, or they dont.

    By Blogger Antonio, at 8:54 AM  

  • john;

    So, uh, the tape that actually exists is a figment of our collective imaginations then? How, pray-tell, do you go about explaining it?

    I know, I know, it's not a fair question as the conservative site probably doesn't have a stock answer already prepped for you. But still, give it a try, eh?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:41 AM  

  • anonymous,

    I'm happy to explain. The tape mentions only "financial considerations". There are plenty of legally defensible explanations for a sentence that vague.

    Assuming that what was offered to Cadman was within the bounds of the law (and I'm pretty damn sure a $1 million life insurance policy was not on the table), then as far as I'm concerned it was a private matter between the CPC and Cadman.

    By Anonymous john g, at 9:39 PM  

  • i am really upset at donna cadman. She has throws mud around and falsely accuses politicians of having tried to bribe her husband. Is a liar who makes false accusations the type of candidate the cons want running for them in surrey? i think they must now remove her candidacy because the rcmp have shown she must be lying.
    i mean, either she was telling the truth that cons tried to bribe chuck, or she is lying and not fit to be a candidate, right? so when do the cons throw her out?
    i love stirring things up.

    By Blogger ktr, at 11:59 PM  

  • You know ktr I am so disappointed in Omar Alghabra. His supporters plaster the Liberal leadership convention with anti-semitic posters targetting Bob Rae's jewish wife and your party keeps the ratty little jew baiter around.

    I mean how can you continue to succor an anti-semitic bigot?

    No wonder Irwin Cotler quit and his wife cancelled her membership.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:53 AM  

  • "The tape mentions only "financial considerations". There are plenty of legally defensible explanations for a sentence that vague."

    Let me try to clarify.

    A stranger asked PMSH about what Dona Cadman had said. PMSH said that he didn't know specifically about the details. But, PMSH confirmed that the CPC had sent emissaries to Chuck Cadman and that a 'financial consideration' was in the works.

    "Asked about the insurance policy, Harper said, "it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election, okay? That's my understanding of what they were talking about."

    To be fair to PMSH, he may not have been involved in the 'financial consideration'. And, the insurance policy may have just been a talking point.

    However, this character that is now Canada's Prime Minister seems to have no understanding of the law, of ethical behaviour, or of discretion.

    To top it off, PMSH is now saying that the 'financial consideration' was a repayable loan(?). Contrary to the meaning of what he said on tape.

    PMSH is sleezy and incompetent. But, we already know that from what he has done elsewhere.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 1:52 AM  

  • PMSH is sleezy and incompetent. But, we already know that from what he has done elsewhere.

    All Liberals are sleezy and incompetent, but, we already know that from what they have done elsewhere.

    Now, would you like to compare lists?

    ==

    By Blogger Platty, at 11:17 AM  

  • "All Liberals are sleezy and incompetent"

    Platty,

    Chretian and Martin took over a deficit and turned it into a surplus.

    How are you going to top that? Don't make promises that you can't keep.

    Mulroney took the lead on the environment. Chretian had the courage to refuse to join the Americans in Iraq. Where were the WMD? In contrast, harper is a climate change denier and neo-con bull.

    Not all Liberals are sleezy and incompetent. They're made mistakes aplenty. But, the harperites make the old Liberals look good.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 2:28 PM  

  • John G, Flanagan refers to this time in his book (well before the scandal broke) as a time when they were consumed with Cadman's vote and did things that later left them "scratching their heads". People can do stupid things when they are completely fixated on one goal that is just out of their reach and Flanagan's description sounds like that is what happened with Harper and him. Harper obviously walks very close to the line of the law, in any case, as his in and out scheme shows, as well as how he publicly denied the deal with Riddell while a judge found otherwise.

    I think Harper is guilty because of his other unethical actions and because of his words on tape -- which just don't make any sense if one is simply talking about the usual loan to a riding association -- that intrepretation of Harper's words is beyond belief. If Harper had a more believable explanation that was legal, we would have heard it.

    By Anonymous catherine, at 4:14 PM  

  • But, the harperites make the old Liberals look good.

    Can you say ADSCAM? Can you say strippergate? How about the gun registry? No? Okay, let's try Radwanski or HRDC boondoggle. Not enough for ya? Try these on for size.

    - Shawinigate
    - Alfonso Gagliano
    - Voting against Red Book promise of independant ethics commissioner
    - Chrétien appointing Hon.Roger Simmons (former Trudeau minister
    convicted of income tax evasion) as Consul-General in Seattle
    - More than $7 billion stashed in Foundations by Finance Minister Paul Martin with no accountability
    - Liberal Senator Thompson living in Mexico
    - Liberal MP Jag Bhaduria making false claims about his academic
    qualifications.
    - Martin using government jets to tour the country campaigning before
    election, spending up to $1 million for air travel alone.
    - David Dingwall’s expenses as head of Royal Canadian Mint.
    - Paul Martin and Maria Minna attending fundraising dinner for group linked to Tamil Tigers in May 2000 (National Post, Sept. 8th, 2001).
    - Paul Martin taking Challenger jets to Liberal fundraisers.
    - Liberal Senator Michel Biron going to hearing to support killer Karla
    Homolka (CTV News, June 9, 2005)

    Would you care for some more Jim? Or did you want the bleeding to subside a little bit first?

    ==

    By Blogger Platty, at 10:52 PM  

  • "Or did you want the bleeding to subside a little bit first?"

    Hang on!

    I'm not a supporter of Chretian or Martin. I'm a new member. I don't look back on the old days with nostalgia.

    I am a fair person. I consider the strengths and weaknesses for a balanced opinion. I am in a position to render a reasonably rational judgement. Above all, what do we need to do for the future?

    On the other hand, you are driven by hate. Your opinion is untrustworthy. You are unable to form a balanced judgement of the New Government because you are obsessed with the past.

    You can list all the iniquities of the Liberals in the last hundred years. But, the Liberal Party (like any organization) is made up of 'good' and 'bad' members.

    The fact is that the Liberal Party is changing. Hopefully, the 'good' members will have a greater say in the future. All reasonable Canadians would want the Liberals to reform because that would safeguard our democracy.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 11:40 PM  

  • "Liberal Senator Michel Biron going to hearing to support killer Karla Homolka (CTV News, June 9, 2005)"

    There is a lengthy article on Karla Homolka in wikipedia. I suggest that you read it.

    In 1993, Crown Prosecutors made a bad deal with Homolka in order to get evidence to convict her husband. Unfortunately, they were not aware of videos that showed Homolka taking an active part in the crimes. Homolka is convicted on lesser charges.

    In 2005, Homolka is about to be released from prison. The judge imposes moderate conditions to her release. The media plays it up. There are lynch mobs incensed by the horror of Homolka's crimes and her escape from murder charges.

    Make no mistake, the crimes were unspeakable. Homolka betrayed those who trusted her.

    Senator Michel Biron (a business/economics specialist) steps in like a hero to defend the damsel in distress. He described the restrictions as something you'd see in a dictatorship. "I have to give her a chance... I don't consider her dangerous," he said.

    I have to disagree with Biron completely. The restrictions were reasonable and done in accordance with the law. There is no reason to make an accusation of "totalitarian". And, Homolka is a psychopath. She would always be dangerous.

    That said, what has Biron's foolishness have to be the Liberals?

    Biron was appointed to the Senate on the basis of his business record. He serves on trade and business Senate committees. He's not one of the bleeding heart Liberals that the Right loves to hate.

    He had an unfortunate brainstorm, and he apologized shortly after. The fact is that none of the usual bleeding heart Liberals went to Homolka's defence.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 12:52 AM  

  • anon: i dont know what alghabra has to do with my points regarding donna cadman. but if you want to get on to other mp's that offend the jewish community, try stockwell day who is such a great con that he is a cabinet minister, even after admitting he still visits the hate mongerer jim keegstra to get his car fixed.
    also, check your facts on cotler. he is still an mp according to www.elections.ca
    anyway, what about donna cadman...is she a liar? yes or no?

    By Blogger ktr, at 1:28 AM  

  • Gee, where do I start? How about this..

    I'm not a supporter of Chretian or Martin. I'm a new member. I don't look back on the old days with nostalgia.

    And yet in your earlier post you say this..

    Chretian and Martin took over a deficit and turned it into a surplus.

    Or how about..

    the Liberal Party (like any organization) is made up of 'good' and 'bad' members.

    So, you would say the same about the Conservative party?

    Or are you just driven by hate?

    Your argument boils down to the same old defence that every Liberal supporter has today.

    Liberals good Conservatives bad

    Why?

    Well, because we said so....

    Sorry, your argument, much like the party you are supporting, is DOA.

    Or as your fearless leader says every morning when he calls his faithfull pooch to the back door.

    Here Kyoto, D'OH!!


    --

    By Blogger Platty, at 1:57 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 2:53 AM  

  • "I'm not a supporter of Chretian or Martin. I'm a new member. I don't look back on the old days with nostalgia.

    And yet in your earlier post you say this..

    Chretian and Martin took over a deficit and turned it into a surplus."

    That's right. I have no wish to see Chretian and Martin again. I pointed out that they have a good economic record because you said, "All Liberals are sleezy and incompetent."

    Logically, you must be wrong. Even Chretian and Martin have had their better days. What did I say about a balanced opinion?

    "the Liberal Party (like any organization) is made up of 'good' and 'bad' members.

    So, you would say the same about the Conservative party?

    Or are you just driven by hate?"

    The CPC is the same as the LPC in this respect. I have never criticized every member of the CPC. Please note that I have only attacked PMSH and his harperites.

    I have some respect for gentlemen like John Clark and grassroots politicians like John Cummins (Richmond-Delta East). In fact, I intend to donate to John Cummins in the next election.

    Do you begin to understand the difference between you and me?

    I have said repeatedly that the Conservatives cannot get a majority as long as PMSH is the boss. My best advice to the Conservatives is to find an honourable and competent leader. I would be happy to consider a vote for a Better Government, but never for the New Government.

    Please take an objective look at yourself. Not everyone is like you.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 3:04 AM  

  • I have never criticized every member of the CPC. Please note that I have only attacked PMSH and his harperites.


    So exactly who are the "harperites" here?

    Do you begin to understand the difference between you and me?

    From a mile away...

    The difference is that I see a PM who is willing to go to work, a PM who works for Canadians not just his own self preservation, unlike the Liberals whose only purpose in life is to get back into power, and will do anything to anyone in order to acheive that goal.
    Scandal mongering with absolutely no policies or vision to offer Canadians.

    Please take an objective look at yourself. Not everyone is like you.

    And, fortunately, there are now fewer people like you, which Canadians will prove in the next election by giving PM Stephen Harper his majority government.

    I suggest you take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself why you support a party that has absolutely nothing to offer Canadians.

    --

    --

    By Blogger Platty, at 8:53 AM  

  • "which Canadians will prove in the next election by giving PM Stephen Harper his majority government"

    What did I say to Chucker? It's a triumph of hope over reality! To you, Cadscam and the in-out scandal have never happened. It's a process of selective memory. You're so obsessed with the past that you ignore the present. How can you forecast the future?

    Let's have another look at the difference between us. I approached the Homolka-Biron matter with an open mind and many questions.

    I didn't defend Homolka because a Liberal Senator 'supported' her. I didn't condemn all Liberals because a Liberal Senator had a brainstorm. I spend time checking the facts and thinking it through.

    On the other hand, you reply by taunting dion with juvenile insults. Though matters were beyond dion's control.

    "Or as your fearless leader says every morning when he calls his faithfull pooch to the back door.

    Here Kyoto, D'OH!!"

    In contrast, harper was faced with a series of ethical and legal issues. He made the bad choices. Now, he's defends himself even though it makes him look like an idiot. Does this sound similar to Chretian?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 10:00 AM  

  • Antonio, one does not need a gas holiday argument to bash Hillary, simple math will do the trick. But I forgot, she is from Arkansas where they do not teach math, rather they teach miracles....

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:29 PM  

  • catherine, are you suggesting that Flanagan confessed to illegal activity in his book?

    By Anonymous john g, at 10:51 PM  

  • Unlike Harper, Flanagan never mentions that the offer was financial, but he does say what the intent was. Flanagan describes the frantic state, their focus on bringing down the government, how very sick Cadman was and how his vote was the key. In discussing the final attempt made just hours before the vote, Flanagan writes:

    “That Doug and I made this last desperate try with Cadman shows how we were all caught up in the attempt to force an election... It’s an excellent example of how the passions of politics lead to decisions that later make you scratch your head.”

    Flanagan says "to force an election" and Harper says "financial considerations" were offered. As far as I know, it is illegal to offer any kind of finances for the purpose of trying to influence an MP's vote in Parliament. I can't think of any legal explanation that makes sense and obviously Flanagan and Harper can't either, or they would have offered it.

    By Anonymous catherine, at 7:58 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home