Thursday, April 08, 2010

Cocaine and Busty Hookers

I don't really have much to say, I just wanted to get the search engine hits from the above title. But if you do want to read all the details of Rahim Jaffer's arrest, the Toronto Star dishes the dirt.

This has set off another round of calls to punt Helena Guergis - personally, I'm not really sure what to think of this whole saga anymore. Should Guergis be held responsible for the sins of her husband? Absolutely not. Is it really such a big deal that, like every other person in Canada, she gets frustrated at airport security? Meh. Who really cares that her staffers wrote some letters to the editor - I'm sure most Ottawa staffers have done the same.

I can't really fault Harper for standing behind his Minister, but the feeding frenzy is on and her credibility has been shot. My guess is Guergis is quietly shuffled aside on a Friday afternoon this August.

Labels: ,

19 Comments:

  • I like the intention behind the "Cocaine and Busty Hookers" title. I should try something like that more often.

    By Blogger The Independent Rage, at 6:43 PM  

  • The issue will be why dId she give him a Blackberry, and did she know he was peddling influence. If she can't explain the BB and there is evidence to how she knew what he was saying then there are big issues.

    Most importanty, if Harper keeps her the story keeps going and this one seems to have legs. It hurts the image of a clean government and takes the wind out of the holier than thou preachings about ethics.

    By Blogger Dilip Andrade, at 6:45 PM  

  • Um, no.

    This is not a "sins of her husband" situation.

    1. If he was lobbying - and it's absurd to believe he wasn't even without this story - then where are the registrations?

    2. It's not like she was Elin and he was Tiger Woods here. His explicit claim, if the TorStar story is true, was that he had political access. At a minimum, she's exposed to liability or worse if Radio Rahim ever talked to her about a client, ever. She's a member of Cabinet, not just some random MP wondering where her husband was last night.

    3. If #1 and #2 weren't enough to warrant an investigation, there's the fact that this story contradicts the Crown's official, public explanation - "a problem in the evidence chain" - for why he got off lightly for his "alleged" coke possession in the first place.

    A full investigation is warranted, of all aspects, at a minimum to defend the integrity of the accountability act.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:02 PM  

  • Rahim Jaffer's a total ditz - how did this guy ever make it into government, and why is Guergis married to such a dink?

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 7:08 PM  

  • Dude... now that you live in the T.Dot... you should totally change the name of your blog to CocaineAndBustyHookers.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 7:09 PM  

  • Why is Guergis married to such a Dink?

    Hell why is Jaffer married to such a bitch.

    A match made in hell.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:14 PM  

  • Jaffer's influence inside the PMO and Cabinet would have been through Jason Kenney, Rona Ambrose etc. I'm sure he was helpful in their ethnic-outreach program.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:34 PM  

  • Shelly Glover for Minister for Status of Women.

    Next shuffle.

    Now there is an empowered woman.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:45 PM  

  • The reason Harper doesn't dump her is that she is "Minister for the Status of Women". As we all know in the Tory weltanshauung - women have very low status - so by keeping here there he sends a message to the Tory base "fear not - we have a a Minister for the Status of Women - but she is the lowest status person on Parliament Hill"

    If Liberals really believe this kind of thing, it's no wonder they've been declining for the last ten years and four elections.

    By Anonymous The Invisible Hand, at 1:29 AM  

  • LMFAO! Because there has never - ever - been a Liberal ex-MP who has had any trouble with the law.

    Ever.

    Or NDP.

    Ever!!!

    How else can we invade the privacy of a private citizen, even if he used to be a public figure?

    By Blogger Paul, at 2:32 AM  

  • Paul - you just don't get it do you. Harper tried to portray his party as pure and clean as the driven snow, the big to-do over the Accountability Act, that he doesn't pay attention to, etc.

    It has come out now that Guergis has charged the buying of personal clothing, purses, etc. as campaign expenses.

    Yup, she is to be brought into this.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:08 AM  

  • I don't think anyone should be at all surprised that a former MP is peddling "influence".

    The guy was caucus chair for a few years - I'm sure he has many connections beyond Helena (whose influence in the PMO is, I would imagine, rather minimal)

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 9:49 AM  

  • Jacques: I suspect "cocaineandbustyhookers.com" is already taken as a domain name.

    This might be an "onprobation" incident all over again...

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 9:50 AM  

  • well that prediction was only off by one lunch break at Harbour 60 (plus 4 months)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:29 PM  

  • "LMFAO! Because there has never - ever - been a Liberal ex-MP who has had any trouble with the law.

    How else can we invade the privacy of a private citizen, even if he used to be a public figure?"

    Paul, you stupid fool, you do understand that stupid remarks like this make me - a Tory - more likely to support the Liberals, right?

    Because his activities weren't private: if he made any previous effort to secure a government loan or peddle influence as per the conversation in the story, it wasn't private - it was federally regulated, thanks to Conservative legislation.

    And who gives a damn about this endless "they did it so we can too?" BS. I voted Tory for change, not more of the same crap.

    Last but not least, note that the PM seems to think there's cause for an investigation. So where's the apology for all of us thinking the same thing that Harper did?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:37 PM  

  • I may be a stupid fool, but his activities were just as private - and subject to the law - as those of thousands of other lobbyists, regardless of their political stripe.

    Yes, the Conservatives have worked to clean up the practise of lobbying, and if Jaffer has violated the law he should be subject to the same treatment as every other lobbyist out there.

    But it is inexcusable to me to suggest that because he is a former Conservative MP that he should be treated to a different, tougher set of laws than every other lobbyist and that his privacy is rightly invaded by the media. He has no more, but no fewer, rights than the others.

    By Blogger Paul, at 4:29 PM  

  • "It has come out now that Guergis has charged the buying of personal clothing, purses, etc. as campaign expenses."

    You will be aware that the campaign finance laws make explicit provisions for this, right? That it is not automatically wrong?

    By Blogger Paul, at 4:31 PM  

  • For those who are interested, the relevant section is S.409.

    Candidates who do not charge personal expenses to their campaign are subject to charges of artificially exceeding their expense limit by not charging all relevant expenses.

    Candidates who do charge personal expenses to their campaign are subject to charges of personal benefit from the campaign.

    By Blogger Paul, at 5:13 PM  

  • By Blogger mmjiaxin, at 8:19 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home