Ms. Buckler also balked at making that kind of blanket denial – even when it was made clear that financial benefits were not being interpreted to include the campaign funds that the Conservatives admit they were prepared to give the dying MP.Buckler wasn't alone:
The Globe and Mail asked Ms. Buckler to confirm that "no representative of the Conservative Party at any time offered Chuck Cadman a financial benefit in exchange for his vote [understanding] ‘financial benefit' to mean anything but help with a possible election campaign."
She twice refused..
Ryan Sparrow, a Conservative Party spokesman, declined in six e-mail exchanges with The Globe and Mail to state that no Conservative official had ever offered a financial inducement of any kind to Mr. Cadman.
Over and over, the Conservative line has been that Cadman was only offered help with his election campaign. There are problems with this defence, namely Cadman's health, but let's give this to the Conservatives for arguments sake. If that were true, then the PMO, the Conservative Party, any representative should have no problem answering the above question. That question purposely eliminates any vague reference, it narrows the focus to the Conservative argument, it merely asks for confirmation. Why the verbal gymnastics? Why can't these people respond to a question which essentially re-iterates what Harper has said, day after day? Why the hesitation?
Something to hide?