You can't have it both ways here, and I think Ignatieff nailed it during Question Period. The Conservatives response, their only response in fact, was that Chuck Cadman publicly rejected, in a CTV interview, that any bribe was offered for his vote. The Prime Minister went so far as to demand an apology from the Liberals, for sullying a dead man. Ignatieff then asked how it is that the Conservatives can run a candidate in
Surrey North that is lying?
If the Conservatives are suggesting that this story is fabrication, it never happened, then they have a candidate in Surrey that tends to "misspeak". How can you run for the federal Conservatives when the leader of your party says you are a liar? Will the Conservatives force Cadman to step aside, to demonstrate to Canadians that lying isn't acceptable for their candidates?
This story has more legs than a centipede.
20 comments:
Just to clarify, the Conservatives responses, both the tape of Cadman on Duffy and the Flanagan and Finley press release, speaks to a May 19 meeting, while the book claims the proposal was made on a May 17 meeting. Seem to be denying events on the wrong day, a different meeting, possibly with different people.
To be fair, Cadman's former assistant said today:
Dan Wallace, Cadman's legislative assistant who is also quoted in the book, said in a statement Thursday that he was not in the meeting with the two Conservative party representatives, and therefore not privy to the details.
Having a liar run for you>>>>>>>>>bribery
Q: Why Do The Conservatives Allow Liars To Run For Office?
A: Because they would not be able to fill their slates if they waited for truthful right wingers to be found!
Look at the spin. The meeting Harper was referring to was the one between Flanagan, Finley, and Cadman at the House of Commons. Duffy was talking about that. The proposal was made at the 17th in Surrey between two handlers from the BC wing. Mound of Sound had hints who these two people were and they were local.
Flanagan and Finley cannot provide that large of a monetary inducement. Somebody more shady would have to do something that weird, offering a phony life insurance policy or as the Blogging Tories called it, discounts that are part of the membership.
Better catch Duffy when it goes online.
Cadman told Duffy, in a private conversation, that he would not bring down the Martin government, because if he lost his riding, he'd lose his life insurance, and wouldn't risk it.
So congrats Libs! You smeared your own hero.
mushroom
Duffy revealed today that Cadman told him he didn't want an election because he was worried about dying and didn't want his wife to lose out on his benefits as MP. If this was common knowledge, then it actually lays credence to people offering a financial incentive to vote with the Cons, if he was worried about taking care of his wife.
There seems to be confusion about dates, the book refers to the 17th, while everyone today was commenting on the meeting of the 19th.
wilson
So bitter...What you didn't pick up on, the fact he was worried about losing his life insurance if there was an election, does lay the foundation for a bribe along those lines, with the Cons well aware this was a concern. In fact, Duffy unknowningly put some dots together here, didn't he??
Well lets see -
Cadman never acknowledged that this took place, but his wife is, are we calling her a LIAR? The assistant comments support her credibility, you can't spin that any other way.
Oh, but apparently YOU can -
How can you run for the federal Conservatives when the leader of your party says you are a liar?
So. First you wonder if I'm calling Ms. Cadman a liar, and on the other hand, question and wonder why the Tories would even consider her for a position within the Party if the leader says she is a liar. You know, come to think of it, it is rather...interesting.....that Ms. Cadman is the only one so far to have brought up anything about a $1,000,000 policy when no one else has. Perhaps now we'll let the rest of this story come out before jumping the gun, hmm?
THEN its revealed that Cadman had other considerations to think about other than a political one that very well could have influenced his decision to not bring the Martin minority Government down.
You're right, this sad story does have more legs than a centipede. To bad the Liberal version will not have a single one to stand on when they try to run with it. But I would really love to see them try! :D
"But I would really love to see them try! :D"
Don't worry, between the RCMP investigation and the ethics committee, I'm sure we will get to the bottom of this sordid affair.
BTW, have you ever seen the show Hogan's Heros? You would make a great Shultz "I see nothing..I hear nothing"
Don't worry, between the RCMP investigation and the ethics committee, I'm sure we will get to the bottom of this sordid affair.
Oh, that we will if it even gets that far, you can bloody well count on it. Just don't expect that it will turn out exactly the way you hope, hmm? Because you guys clearly haven't learned your lesson from the latest "ethics" committee fiasco.
BTW, have you ever seen the show Hogan's Heros? You would make a great Shultz "I see nothing..I hear nothing"
And have you ever seen the Pink Panther? You would make a great Inspector Clouseau "It won't be easy, that is why I have always failed where others have succeeded." Or better yet whenever someone said, "Phone call for Inspector Clouseau," Clouseau would reply, "Ah yes, that would be for ME."
"Just don't expect that it will turn out exactly the way you hope, hmm?"
You mean like this morning, when you said this would all be cleared up by suppertime? LOL, keep flailing, you guys are amusing, if not convincing, or relevant for that matter.
Everything points to a Conservative bribe. Even more so, if the Cons knew Cadman was worried about losing his life insurance if defeated. They seem to have decided to try to secure his vote. I trust Mr. Cadman as a man of integrity. I truly believe he would not have accepted any bribe... Some "Reform-a-tories", I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them...
kai
If some of your posts aren't making it on anymore, it's because I just put on the IQ filter. I set it as low as the program allows, but it still seems to boot your analysis. Keep trying, something is bound to break the 80 barrier. Fingers crossed.
grit
I think this admission by Duffy might be a smoking gun. Surely, Cadman didn't just confide in Duffy, others might be able to verify this angle, and if so, you have a clear path of understanding.
Then the May 19 meeting becomes even more significant. Knowing that the two shady characters offered the dodgy life insurance policy, Flanagan and Finley decided to clean up the mess. That is to offer Chuck a free run as the CPC candidate so that he can die in office. Surrey North is safe enough for Chuck to run a campaign in abstentia, as long as his ground crew do the job.
The Ethics Committee's work is simple. Find out who the two shady characters are and whether Dan Wallace was at that meeting in the Surrey constituency office on the 15th.
Steve,
I don't like your title to this. It smacks of smearing Dona Cabman, and I don't think she deserves that.
The other interpretation is that Harper smeared Cabman, and he clearly was not implying that in his comments.
Tomm
I recalled from watching Duffy at the day of the vote. Flanagan and Finley even offered the opportunity of Chuck running as an Independent, with the Cons deciding not to field a candidate. This is another possibility.
tomm
If they are saying it didn't happen, then their candidate is lying. Not to mention Cadman's daughter, who just confirmed on CBC that her father told her the same story.
Steve,
OK.....
Still think you are being a little too bold here.
Tomm
Maybe ;)
Post a Comment