Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Guess The MP?

Read the following on the Cadman affair, who said it:

"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."


Answer in the comment section.

34 comments:

Steve V said...

NDP MP Thomas Mulclair, impersonating a Conservative. Yesterday, I had questions, today we have the obvious answers. Shameful.

Steve V said...

For context:

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."

Blogging Horse said...

Mulcair is a lawyer, and as such happens to know some rules of evidence and legal procedure, which is probably why he's not being sued, unlike Dion and Iggy who have clealy over-reached on the Cadman file.

But really: why ARE the Liberals letting Harper get his agenda though? Didn't Liberal MPs get elected on a promise to stand up to Harper?

Steve V said...

"But really: why ARE the Liberals letting Harper get his agenda though?"


Newman:

"What's that have to do with, with all due respect, financial considerations in a tape recording from 2005?"

A BCer in Toronto said...

Come now, blogging horse. If you read this blog at all you know Steve is strongly against the abstention strategy. You're both on the same page there, and so am I actually.

That settled, how about back to the point of this post. Why is the NDP seemingly ignoring these very serious Cadman allegations?

If I were ever to lend them my vote I'd like to think they could walk and chew gum, ie. attack the Liberals and push for investigation of these allegations, at the same time. It needn't be either or.

Speaking as a disenchanted member of the Liberal left, we folks you're trying to entice over to your side will not be swayed by such a strategy.

clh said...

Sounds like the NDP has been bought on this one.

northwestern_lad said...

BCer... it's true we are all on the same page when it comes to the abstentions, but it's not true that the NDP is ignoring these allegations. It's quite the opposite, as the NDP wants this to go to the RCMP before the House Ethics Committee gets their hands on it. Even Liberal Paul Szabo was agreeing with that now, and here is the quote...

"“The best outcome here to clear the water is for an RCMP investigation,” Paul Szabo said. “We're not a court. We can't lay charges. It would just delay, ultimately, the process.”

Personally, I believe we need to take the partisanship out of this issue because this issue is bigger than parties, it's about the integrity of the political process. If someone is guilty of that, then they need to face the full force of the law, and that means letting the RCMP take the first crack at this.

I believe that it will make everyone look better, Liberal and New Democrat, if this goes to the RCMP first, especially if they end up laying charges. If this is really as bad as we think it is, then the police need to get their shot first, otherwise it makes all politicians look like they are only interested in their own political interest. We all need to have a common goal, and that should be about getting to the bottom of this, not to possibly start another circus sideshow on the Hill

Steve V said...

Cam

Why is Mulclair using lame Conservative talking points, he sounds like Moore for crips sake? Why is Mulclair giving that lame talking point credence by repeating it as a way to discredit getting to the truth?

If you think partisanship should be taken out of the equation, then you should write the NDP and tell them to stop the nonsense. Martin is on record having no faith in the RCMP, and yet he puts all his faith in that body. Bullshit.

A BCer in Toronto said...

Cam, it looks like we agree on some things, and disagree on others. We agree we need an election, we agree these allegations are serious, and partisanship (as much as possible) should be removed. We disagree on whether or not the ethics committee should have it, or whether or not the committee would prejudice any RCMP investigation.

Can we add Tom Muclair's comments being ridiculous into the things we agree with column?

Blogging Horse said...

One can hardly accuse any New Democrat of behaving like Conservatives while Liberals sit in the Commons (more often NOT, though) and deliberately help Harper get his way on issue after issue.

Steve V said...

"One can hardly accuse any New Democrat of behaving like Conservatives while Liberals sit in the Commons (more often NOT, though) and deliberately help Harper get his way on issue after issue."


Newman:

"What's that have to do with, with all due respect, financial considerations in a tape recording from 2005?"


Focus on the issue at hand, instead of diversions, which we agree on.

Just curious, what your guess NDPer's, what was your first reaction, before the partisan filter??

Anonymous said...

Yeah I saw it too Steve. It's sad when politicians, of all stripes, put their party above the truth.

As a lawyer, he must realize there have been criminal cases involving witness testimony from people who heard what a dead man has said.

Not to mention tape of Stephen Harper saying there were financial offers, not to mention Dan Wallace validating Dona's account, not to mention Jodi and Holland Miller's accounts, not to mention Dona is a conservative candidate, not to mention the Conservatives aren't saying Dona is lying, and the list goes on.

Thomas Mulcair is looking at the future, he knows this will hurt the Conservatives, he just wants the NDP to benefit and not the Liberals
-scott
thescottross.blogspot.com

northwestern_lad said...

Jeff... I agree that cutting out the partisanship here has to come from both sides, and I wasn't thrilled by the tone of Mr Mulcair comments today or even Mr. Martin's comments yesterday. I knew what they were trying to say, which was let the RCMP get their first crack, but it didn't come across that way. When I read those comments, my mind automatically started revising how I would have said it to achieve that goal of non-partisanship

Blogging Horse said...

Nothing Mulcair said is incorrect.

There is no evidence here. It is he-said-she-said. Even the book's publisher is changing the facts. Which is precisely why the NDP has said turn it over to the cops and the Director of Public Prosecutions to get to the bottom of it. Makes sense.

That said, the Liberals are the ones impersonating Conservaties everytime they help Harper win votes in the House.

northwestern_lad said...

blogging... you and I don't disagree much, but sorry, there is something there and some evidence. If there was no evidence, Harper would be suing the author of this biography for libel. If there wasn't there would be nothing to send to the RCMP to investigate.

I do agree though that the RCMP needs to take the lead on this one and investigate.

knb said...

Mulcair tonight on Politics.

knb said...

I could not believe my ears and the Bloq MP sitting beside him did a big Whaaa?

Thank goodness for Newman. He's heard all the junk a million times over and he makes his guests, all of them stick to the topic. Love it.

IMO, the NDP at this point have completely sold out. Will they be able to sustain that? Who knows?

On this file, the NDP have shown their hand. They want to dimnish any Liberal advantage and they are looking ridiculous and obvious.

Mulcair of course is their loose cannon and even after tonight, I doubt he'll be reined in.

A predicton? Mulcair will prove to be the NDP's biggest nightmare. His voracious appetite for the 'kill' will make that party even more irrelevant to thinking people.

btw, can someone explain to me why he holds one hand with the other? I won't make fun here because it may have to do with an ailment. It's odd though.

knb said...

Damn, I forgot to check the follow-up box again!

The Jurist said...

Steve: I'll note that my initial guess was an NDP MP, simply because you and other Libs have spent so much time focusing on them this week. And the Libs are apparently only getting worse in that department.

That said, I'll grant that for the first time I agree with your criticism. There's plenty worth investigating here (as Pat Martin and others have made clear from the NDP side), and I honestly don't know why Mulcair would want to minimize the issue.

CfSR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CfSR said...

This has more to do with the NDP fear that allowing this story to get the exposure it deserves, might remind Surrey North voters what a wonderful man Chuck Cadman was and cost them a seat they now hold.

It would be hard to run against the widow of an ethics martyr.

Turns out that burying this story is in the NDP's interest too.

It would be funny if it was so pathetic.

Steve V said...

Jurist

A good deduction ;)

knb

I could have put in the part where Newman said (paraphrasing)"what are you saying here Thomas, earlier you were saying how serious this is, now your downplaying it"

Welcome to the Bbrooaadcast.

cyberwanderer said...

I was wondering the same thing. I noticed Layton practically ignore the whole incident. Even Bloc Quebecois was asking some pointed question. My first thought was Layton probably think it's a Liberal initiated thing and don't want to see Liberal surge in poll at their expense.

RuralSandi said...

Well, here's a new twist - from Kady O'Mally's blog:

Am I the only person who didn't know that Chuck Cadman's former assistant, Dan Wallace, of May 17th meeting-denial and affadavit-writing fame, now works on the Hill for Conservative MP Kevin Sorenson?

I heard that the NDP are scrambling around with "confidence motions" to try to trap the Liberals - why are they in such a hurry? This is getting quite curious.

knb said...

LOL Steve. Did you notice that he now say's Pawwwdcast.

Anyway, Mulcair didn't bite an went on and on. Their mission isn't the Con's. It's the Libs and it's obvious.

Idiots they. 3 motions of confidence? They have taken a page out the Con's book.

Something tells me that Dion will benefit from this. When you beat up on someone, the victim becomes the focus. I would not underestimate this victim.

knb said...

Sandi, I first read that at Quito's blog, but I'll check out what Kady has to say. She has a way digging under the surface.

The NDP? Curious indeed.

Anonymous said...

Their mission isn't the Cons. It's the Libs and it's obvious.

Idiots they. And they avoid all motions of confidence against the Cons? They have taken a page out the Con's book.
Something tells me that Layton and Duceppe will benefit from this. When you beat up on someone, the victim becomes the focus. I would not underestimate this victim.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Mulcair feels obligated to support the Conservatives because many of them supported him to get elected in Outremont to make sure liberal did not get elected.

Jay said...

The NDP had no qualms about Mulroney/Schrieber investigationa dn the only two people who could settle it, Moore and Doucet, are both dead so this excuse...

"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."

...holds absolutely no water.

What a joke the Dippers are becoming. Now they look like they are doing the conservatives cover up work. Make no wonder they are fringe.

This fringe party thinks it can replace the liberals by allowing a conservative majority. The only route through which they could ever hope to have a chance and yet if they do such everything they stand for will have been destroyed by the conservatives.

JimmE said...

Jay is right-on. My Dipper friends are more interested in drinking their Kool-aid from cups that read: " don't blame me, I voted for morally superior Jack Layton" than actually achieving anything.

Jay said...

Have you seen the spending going on between Layton and Chow? Talk about Champagne Socialists.

Personally, I am just glad I don't vote for them (NDP) anymore. They made sense when I was a broke student who never wanted to pay for my own education or anything in general but now I've grown up and financially responsible and can actually pay for things such as bank fees/access fees as part of being provided a service.

What the NDP wants us liberals and left leaners to do is take a big group piss in the wind.

Yeah, right.

bigcitylib said...

NL,

Mulclair sounds like he wants this thing to die. Does the NDP any strategy now other than to bash the Libs?

Steve V said...

"Does the NDP any strategy now other than to bash the Libs?"

That stategy is paying off for the NDP. Hovering around offical party status levels, fourth in Ontario- yes, clearly the obsession with the Liberals is a winner with Canadians.

JimmE said...

Speaking of Champaign Socialists: When Mr & Mrs Layton Were both Toronto City councilors for some time they lived in subsidized housing - that don't get brought up in their CV often do it?