The Conservatives behaviour in this matter is predictably disgraceful, given their attachment to gutter politics.
The Liberals behaviour in this matter is, surprisingly, even more disgraceful, given that there is absolutely nothing for them to gain by settling, beyond some vague “let’s put this Dion-related thing behind us” horseshit.
Someone please explain what the Libs are up to here. The only thing I can think of is that, Harper's sleazy legal maneuvers aside, the inference from his words on the tape to the accusation that he had "authorized a bribe" (made on the Libs website and not in the protected confines of the HOC) was maybe a legal bridge too far, as Kinsella seemed to think last May, and the Libs had a few losses of their own that they were willing to cut, Zytaruk be damned.
13 comments:
Why did the Liberals settle? Perhaps because, even if they could prove their case, Harper could afford to drag it out for so long and run up such a legal bill that it would damm near bankrupt the Liberal Party.
Perhaps Kady might ask where her colleagues in the press gallery have been, and why they don't start doing some actual investigative reporting on the meat of the Cadman case rather than either ignoring it, or just covering the related stories in a superficial, horserace way rather getting at the meat of the matter: what was offered to whom when, and who knew.
What happened to real journalism in this country?
Actually, Kady has been doing exactly that. She's been on this one since day one.
Perhaps Kady might ask where her colleagues in the press gallery have been
I'm not sure what you expect them to do. One of the two parties involved is deceased and the other--the Cons--aren't about to incriminate themselves.
And, BCer, I think the most important thing for me is the silence after the settlement, not the settlement itself. The quote may not make that clear.
But why are those members of the party not touched by the settlement remaining quiet? They should be ramming this down the Tories throat.
Someone please explain what the Libs are up to here.
Try your Liberal MP and see what you get.
I don't care about this as an issue with the Liberals anymore. I'd like to know more about what the RCMP has done. Remember, that corrupt/inept little gang is at the heart of what is so often mystifying in this country
No one asking where Dona Cadman is in defending Zytaruk? Afterall, she's the one who originally spilled the beans on this issue.
Now the NDP decide it's an issue? Where were they whent the whole thing came out? Political crap from the NDP - who were waiting and hoping one of the two parties would be destroyed - sleazy at best.
Harper wanted to break the Libs financially, and it this went on it could.
So, now let's let the lazy journalists start doing their jobs.
RuralSandi, do you ever read other blogs? The reason I'm asking is that Accidental Deliberations actually posted a response to the same challenge and "misrepresentation" by Steve V .here
Let's see. How about these ones?
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, Chuck Cadman was one of the most decent and honourable members of Parliament I have ever known. I like him even better now that I know when emissaries of the Conservative Party tried to encourage him to change his vote, he threw the bums out of his office and he sent them packing.
When the Liberals tried to bribe Gurmant Grewal, the Conservatives howled with derision. In the absence of any tape recordings this time around, we have the widow of Chuck Cadman, the candidate in that riding, with one story and the Prime Minister with another.
Will the government please clarify the situation?
...
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize how serious this is. Trying to bribe members of Parliament to change their votes is a high crime and misdemeanour on the same scale of severity as treason. It undermines the integrity of the democratic process. It is a subversion of the Constitution.
We have a glaring contradiction here. We have the widow of Chuck Cadman saying that such an inducement was offered. We have the Prime Minister denying that there was any such offer.
My suggestion is this. Will the Prime Minister agree to contact Dona Cadman immediately and then bring back to the House the clear story? Was there an inducement or not?
Of course, the NDP did focus on some other topics at the time as well. But making a choice among the available matters to bring up is an entirely different - and more legitimate - decision than to sign a binding agreement with the government not to deal with an issue.
I'm sure that now that you know that the NDP did publicly speak out you will publicly retract your statement, not wanting to misrepresent the NDP here. Right?
Why do people continue to think this was a two way street? It was Harper's lawsuit, which he could end at any time. The LPC had no power to keep it going if Harper wanted to quit.
We have no idea what the terms of settlement were, except that we know the LPC did not pay Harper anything nor did they apologize or admit to any wrong doing. The apparent price for that was to not comment on the lawsuit. There is even a possibility the CPC agreed to pay the LPC's legal bills.
There was no way to guarantee they were going to win the lawsuit in any event, so agreeing to these minor terms (and in the context of civil litigation these are minor terms) was a no brainer. As Jeff points out, the alternative was to spend, spend and spend some more.
It is the media's role to keep this going now. The CPC has not stopped dragging Zytaruk through the mud - the media should be pointing out their allegations are fabrications, and they should be doing that each and every time they make them.
The RCMP has also done all they can do. Unless one of the parties to the discussion wants to start talking, there is no way for the RCMP to gather any more evidence.
If the NDP are so interested in this story they can revive that parliamentary committee investigation into the whole affair. They were instrumental in ending this investigation after all.
Gayle - here, here. The NDP stopped the notion of that committee.
janfromthe bruce - no date of what potty mouth Pat Martin said and even so....hardly a full fledged inquiry on the issue. Nope, I won't retract.
The reason I'm asking is that Accidental Deliberations actually posted a response to the same challenge and "misrepresentation" by Steve V .here
I'm sure we can find the latest instalment in Accidental Deliberation's never-ending campaign against the Liberal Party without your help, Moonbat Jan. Or if need, be, we can simply check the NDP's site itself, since the talking points are exactly the same.
I agree that Kady has been one of the rare voices calling attention to this issue on her blog. I think, though, to truly seep into the public consciousness and create the kind of public pressure that will lead to truth the story needs to break out of the blogs, which are read largely by political nerds and insiders, and into the wider traditional media, broadcast and print.
Indeed, this story seems like an ideal one for a weekly news magazine like Maclean's. The format offers both the time and space to go beyond the latest headline and lay-out the events in a clear and concise way, in context, from what we know to what we don't know, who is talking and who isn't, etc. If the public knew I think they'd be upset, and public pressure could have results. It would be great to see such a piece in the print edition of Maclean's.
On the Liberals, I've been surprised at their timidity post settlement. I agree with their decision to settle the thing; the lawsuit was really a distraction by Harper et al. The fundamental issues remain. I would like to see the Liberals pushing as hard for answers as they can, while, of course, respecting the terms of the mystery settlement. It would seem a committee investigation is the local next step. But if the Liberals do have more leeway that they're choosing not to exercise for some reason, then that's upsetting and unacceptable.
And on the NDP's sudden interest in this case and allegations of historical revisionism, here's a link to a story on the NDP's blocking a committee probe last March:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/309497
And around the same time, Thomas Muclair on Newman's show:
Mulclair
"At the end of the day, we have a Liberal opposition that's not there in the House of Commons"
Newman:
"What's that have to do with, with all due respect, financial considerations in a tape recording from 2005?"
Mulclair:
"Don, it's got everything to do with what there up to. 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."
A Star editorial chastised the NDP:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/309756
Post a Comment