Thursday, April 16, 2009

Things We've Learned So Far


-anyone who ever thought that Karlheinz Schreiber could suddenly become a reliable witness, from which one could unravel the "mystery" needs their head examined

-the only people who still care about Mulroney/Shreiber are the media and the PMO

-Karlheinz Schreiber has a bad skin condition

-Kady O'Malley has bionic fingers

-the "bombshell" will come when CBC Newsworld gets the ratings report for the inquiry coverage (I think we've found a cure for insomnia)

-news reports will be filled with feeble attempts to make it appear as though new information has been gleamed, partially because reporters are trying to justify how they got saddled with this lame gig

-some pundit will refer to "tomorrow" as a potentially big day in the proceedings

-we need an inquiry to find out why this inquiry was necessary


bigcitylib said...

N. Spector seemed to think something important was about to happen.

Steve V said...

Didn't Spector say that before this thing started?

Jim said...

I for one find the whole "nothing to see here" attitude from Liberal supporters now with respect to this inquiry a bit annoying when it was the LIBERALS who were the LOUDEST voices calling for it in the first place.

I supported the inquiry and still do. Didn't you support it when it was called too? What's changed? If this is "old news" now, why was it not "old news" over a year ago when the inquiry was called and Liberals supported it?

Some consistency would be nice. I think these are serious allegations and I don't see why Liberals are so quick to cut Mulroney some slack as this poor old wonderful PM that we should be pitying all of a sudden. Yes I know the Libs still officially support the inquiry but this turn on a dime sympathy for Mulroney is bizarre, sure Harper's treatment of him is obsecene and unjustifiable (and stupid from a political and party unity perspective as well) but it doesn't mean we Liberals need to be cutting Mulroney any slack ourselves.

And now there's a video making the rounds on Liberal blogs where we are supposed to feel great sympathy for poor saintly Mulroney bc Stephen Harper was mean to him? Give me a break. Brian Mulroney said WORSE things about other people himself, including A LOT of Liberals such as Trudeau and his cabinet ministers, so he's not to be pitied.

So what gives, seriously? Can't we just say they were both terrible but Harper is worse? And why did people like you support this inquiry in the first place if it's so worthless now?

Steve V said...

"I for one find the whole "nothing to see here" attitude from Liberal supporters now with respect to this inquiry a bit annoying when it was the LIBERALS who were the LOUDEST voices calling for it in the first place."

Oh, so I speak for the party. Who knew...Truth of the matter, this story has bored me for years and after watching Schreiber in committee, it was obvious this guy is so unreliable, it's a waste of time.

BTW, from my blog Nov 2007

"I still don't care about Mulroney"

Steve V said...

Me again Nov 2007

"Don't Care"

I'm pretty sure I'll be in the minority on this one, but I react to the whole Mulroney saga with a gigantic yawn.

About the only use I saw was distracting the media from bludgeoning Dion.

Jim said...

Fair enough Steve and I do like consistency. Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing but Liberal blogs as a whole seem to be a lot more Mulroney friendly (the Mulroney sympathy video going around on several Lib blogs is further evidnece) than they used to be and I just don't get it. I suppose it's done to maybe make Harper look like an asshole for being well such an asshole to a former PM, but I don't think you need to make Mulroney look good to make Harper look bad and have to try to create sympathy for him. They were both bad, just Harper is worse. Doesn't mean Mulroney doesn't still deserve to be harshly criticized for his record and character while in office.

I don't think Mulroney is worth any pity and since he called for this inquiry himself deserves to get whatever shady embarassing details come out of this inquiry.

Steve V said...

"and I do like consistency."

I just got lucky on this one ;)

I attribute the lack of focus from Liberal blogs as a testament to the lack of substance, but I can't speak for anyone else. Partisanship aside, it's quite telling to see the lengths the PMO has gone to seperate themselves from Mulroney.

Jim said...

Yes it is quite telling, but it also makes me think they know something we don't that there will indeed.

Harper may have made A LOT of dumb moves lately, but I don't think he would have gotten through painful calculated moves to distance himself if he wasn't fairly confident that Mulroney's name wouldn't be poison by the end of the inquiry. But I guess Harper isn't exactly the grand strategist the media USED to make him out to be, so maybe this was just plain stupid on his part all around.

Anyways, I do think the inquiry will tarnish Mulroney's reputation further, but at the end of the day it will still likely be clear that Harper went way too far in trying to separate himself (at the expense of his own party's unity) from his one-time "mentor".

Jim said...

should say: "know something we don't that there will indeed be some sort of bombshell before this is over."

Steve V said...

There might well be, but to date it's been pretty pedestrian, and this is the main character.

Jim said...

But Shreiber said there are 7 scandals to come, 7!

Seriously though Schreiber is a horrible witness. The interesting part will be when Mulroney himself testifies since much of his own stories don't really make sense either, like why he needed it all in cash, and there were no records of it and he only reported it when the whole thing came to light, why he put in separate cash boxes instead of just bank accounts, and so on...

In my view we are looking at TWO shady characters in this story, and while Shreiber will likely in the end appear to be the more shady one that's not really saying much...

Anonymous said...

I have become more sympathetic to Mulroney recently. It is about legacy. In a country where Prime Ministers don't have the lasting power of an American President, BM will easily qualify as a top ten Prime Minister. I would rank Chretien and Mulroney about the same category. Whether you like it or not, NAFTA, the GST, and Meech Lake did change the country greatly.

When one talks about Harper in history, the first thing that will be mentioned is the need for the GG to prorogue Parliament. Something that was unnecessary and weakened him greatly. He will be seen forever as a mean spirited ideologue, who came to power at a time when the Grits were led by Martin and Dion. Two leaders who had to be considered duds with regards to electoral success.

Northern PoV said...

Chretian and Brian M. equals???


Meech almost killed us
NAFTA may yet kill us

on the other hand, Jean:
* slayed the separatists
* slayed the deficit (with help from GST)
* kept us out of Iraq

Brian didn't make the top ten
Jean is near the top (he looks better and better as the years go on)