Something To Hide?

If you have nothing to hide, if your lame explanations are true, then you should have no problem denying a clear question. How then do Conservative apologists explain the PMO's refusal to answer the following?:

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.


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..

Buckler wasn't alone:

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?

Ipsos Poll

On the face of it, the new Ipsos poll looks pretty much the same as their last poll, with a slight narrowing between the Conservatives and Liberals. However, there is a fairly significant shift in the regional numbers that should give Conservatives pause. The national numbers:

The ruling Conservatives have the support of 35% of decided voters, while the Liberals remain in second place with 31% support. The NDP have the support of 15% of Canadians, while the Green Party would be the choice of 9%

Tories down one, Liberals up one, not much change from a poll two weeks ago. However, when you look at the Ontario numbers, you see a noteworthy shift, the largest I can remember for an Ipsos poll. Ipsos had the Conservatives at 37%, the Liberals 34%, the NDP 14%, Greens 13% just two weeks ago. Today's poll presents a far different picture:

In vote-rich Ontario, the Liberals at 40% support lead the Conservatives (31%), while the NDP (16%) and Green Party (12%) lag behind.

A seismic shift, particularly for an outfit who's Ontario numbers are generally for favorable for the Conservatives. As a sidenote, Ipsos Cadman poll also found that Harper scored lowest on believability and suing the Liberals in Ontario. Couple that with the federal government's jihad against McGuinty (yes I said it) and the numbers start to make sense. A full 12 point swing and a situation which makes the national numbers somewhat misleading.

If not for Conservative support increasing to ridiculous proportions in Alberta (74% from 61% two weeks ago), on the heels of the provincial election, the national numbers would have tightened further. Last time I checked, the Conservatives held all the Alberta seats, which makes their massive showing pretty much irrelevant to the bigger picture. As a matter of fact, when you factor in the regional disparities and focus on seats, this poll presents a scenario where the Liberals would be favored to form a minority.

"Old Style Politics"

The only positive in having Harper actually govern, is in watching the old right talking points evaporate. Remember all the angry directed towards the Liberals, the "Liberals of Montreal", a party who's version of federalism played favorites, pandered, gave disproportionate attention. Must be a painful pill to swallow for the faithful, watching these new crusaders behave like, well, Liberals:

The Harper government has been channelling a disproportionate amount of economic development money in Quebec into Conservative-held ridings...

the Conservatives held 10 of the 75 federal seats in Quebec, giving them a 13.3 per cent share. However, projects in Conservative ridings received 22 per cent of the agency's funding...

Ridings held by the Bloc Quebecois received funding roughly in line with the party's share of seats in the province. The Bloc held 51, or 68 per cent, of the seats in Quebec over most of the period studied, and Bloc ridings received 69 per cent of the agency's funding. By contrast, Liberal MPs occupied 13 seats, or 17.3 per cent of the total, but their ridings only received 8.5 per cent of Canada Economic Development's funding.

On average, each Conservative seat received $10.8 million in economic development money. That is more than one and a half times the average of $6.6 million that Bloc Quebecois ridings have received, and more than three times the $3.2-million average for Liberal ridings.

"There are two stories here. One is the partisan favouritism and the corollary to that is that (the results) suggest this is a pork barrel," said Nelson Wiseman, a political science professor at the University of Toronto.

I guess we can check cronyism, patronage and an end to "old style politics" off the sanctimonious list of the believers. Same old, same old, probably worse given the self-annointed moral supremacy.

Cadman Poll

Ipsos poll on the Cadman affair, which reveals Canadians don't think much of Harper's legal threats, nor do they believe nothing occured:

"The big problem Harper has is that 44 per cent of the population think the Conservatives did offer something to Cadman," Mr. Bricker said in an interview

The story doesn't give us the poll pdf, so you can't see how many believe the Conservatives, or the "don't know/no answer" percentages, but the fact that Bricker says "big problem" suggests the majority that answered believe something was offered. More numbers:

About 29 per cent said they did not believe that Mr. Harper was unaware of the alleged offer and that another 22 per cent have not yet decided whether to believe Mr. Harper or the Cadman family, who maintain the offer was made.

Further proof that the public thinks something needs to be investigated:

Almost one-third of respondents said they favoured a public investigation led by a third party, such as the Commons Speaker or ethics commissioner, while 31 per cent said an investigation by the RCMP would be the most appropriate course of action.

Ten per cent said the daily question period in the Commons was the best way to get to the bottom of the allegations, while six per cent said the best course of action would be to leave it to the media to flush out the truth.

On the question of taking the Liberals to court, the vast majority think Harper is out of line:

Only three in 10 Canadians think Prime Minster Stephen Harper would be right to sue Stephane Dion and other Liberals for publishing the allegations on the party's official website.

On the question of how to deal with the allegations, a solid majority of those polled - 62 per cent - said "these matters should be kept out of the courts."

No party numbers released, although Bricker said voter impact has yet to be impacted. Given the Liberal performance, it's hard to isolate the impact of this scandal.

Bricker does say, moving forward:

"But unless the prime minister has a better story than the one that he has, it's just going to get worse,"

The really good news, and I think this indicative of how Canadians feel, the complete rejection of Harper's libel threats. If people believed these charges were baseless, then they would have more sympathy for Harper's predicament, and his response. The fact they fully side with the Liberals on this score, speaks to a certain amount of believability to the charges. These type of results might give Harper second thoughts on whether to proceed.

At the very least, the above poll(commissoned for Canwest, one that it's own reporters say tends "to over-estimate Conservative support") supports the idea of pressing this issue further, Canadians seem to want further inquiry, seem to have doubts about the government's story. These type of findings provide the opposition with plenty of latitude to proceed, the public on side, an element of moral authority.

You Do Pay A Price

For all those that think you can hide behind curtains, offer insane logic for not going to the polls, sit on your hands, and wait for the perfect storm to materalize, you need to understand actions do have consequences. Not only will you not curry favor with soft supporters, the undecided, expand your support, you will also alienate your core and begin to rot from the inside.

None Of The Above

Pretty inspiring stuff occuring in Ottawa, a situation all Canadians can take pride in, no matter your political stripe. A government meandering through multiple scandals, elevating certain ones, to mitigate the damage from others. A official opposition, that hides behinds curtains, surprised when people notice. Another party, who's representatives stay up all night, thinking of new ways to try and embarrass the official opposition. MP's calling others "wimps", catcalls, even frothing at the mouth. And, we wonder why average Canadians don't pay attention, can you blame them?

I would argue, that right at this exact moment, parliament is at a historic low, the discourse so juvenile, from all sides, a really shameful display. A grand achievement, given past examples, the bar was already quite low, and yet it gets worse. A gigantic disconnect between what people care about, and what our representatives give priority.

People come up with all these theories, on how we can increase voter turnout, reverse the trend to apathy. I have one suggestion, put "none of the above" on the ballot, I'm willing to bet people come out in droves, it wins in a landslide.

Anyways, back to CPAC for the riveting discourse, some more motions just introduced, something about "the Liberals wear army boots", another "showing up to vote is so 20th century" and "I'm rubber and you're glue". A nation slumbers, in the midst of irrelevance.

Liberals, Bloc, Work Around The NDP

While Stephen Harper praises Jack Layton in Parliament for ignoring the Cadman affair, the Liberals and Bloc devise an alternate parliamentary route to delve into the scandal:

A motion that Liberal justice critic Dominic Leblanc worked out with the Bloc proposes "an immediate study into allegations that Chuck Cadman was offered financial inducements in exchange for voting with the Conservatives in the House of Commons."

Leblanc expects approval Tuesday of the plan - which could require testimony from top Harper confidants Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan - since the two opposition parties have a majority on the government-chaired committee. Extra hearings would be added to the committee's agenda so that legislative work would not be disrupted.

The motion proposes the justice committee determine whether Section 119 of the Criminal Code, providing up to 14 years prison for bribery, and Section 41 of the Parliament of Canada Act, providing up to a year in jail for illegal compensation to an MP, "currently serve as effective deterrents in preventing attempts to bribe members of Parliament."

The Liberals and Bloc turned to the justice committee after the NDP, which says the matter belongs in the hands of police and prosecutors, served notice it would scuttled a proposed a Cadman inquiry at the opposition-chaired ethics committee, where the NDP has the deciding vote.

Every NDP supporter should shutter at the thoughts of praise from Stephen Harper:

Notice of the motion followed a rowdy question period, during which Harper accused Dion of smear tactics and praised NDP Leader Jack Layton for asking about what he considered more serious matters - the leak of Canadian diplomatic information that has affected the Democratic presidential campaigns.

"I would point out to the leader of the Opposition that when he was throwing around wild accusations of scandal, the leader of the NDP was already on top of this issue," Harper charged, prompting an uproar in the Commons.

On hypocrisy:

"I remember in 2005 they (the NDP) didn't have the same view," Leblanc told reporters. "A number of people who were subsequently convicted following events around the sponsorship program testified at a parliamentary inquiry, so it's simply a facile and phony justification that doesn't hold up. Many successful criminal prosecutions have been held following witnesses coming to appear before a parliamentary committee."

It's a shame that these two opposition parties have to manoeuver around the NDP obstruction, but the good news, we will at least get an airing from the principles. So, while two opposition parties keep up the fight, on a critical point, the NDP seems content to use Conservative talking points and bask in praise from the Prime Minister. Where have we seen this act before?

A sidenote, the Liberals have been a disaster as of late, a fact which hasn't escaped many Liberal supporters. Despite apprehension about the Conservatives, despite issues which hurt the government, the Liberals haven't been able to capitalize, and I attribute much of this to their failed strategy of hiding, perpetuating weakness, reinforcing the challenges.

But, there is another storyline at play here, one that tends to go unnoticed. Despite the fact that the Liberals are wounded, in a precarious position, the party which should benefit, the NDP, has failed to do so, in fact the polling shows a situation where official party status is an issue, the unheard of scenario of a tie for third in Ontario. Disaffected voters aren't moved to the Liberal column, but they sure as heck aren't gravitating to the NDP either, despite favorable optics, relative to their old foe. I take this reality as a sign that the NDP's fixation on all things Liberal, forever calculating every position into an equation of Liberal benefit/Liberal harm isn't resonating with voters, in fact it's failing badly. The Liberal house is out of order, but maybe it's time for the NDP to reaccess their strategy, maybe it's time for NDP supporters to look with a critical eye, and take a swing or two, instead of echoing the leadership. It would appear, there is more than one party spinning its wheels.

It would be a pleasant surprise, if on Tuesday, when the Bloc and Liberals introduce their valid motion, the lone NDP member of the committee, Joe Comartin jumps on board.

Drop him a line: comartin.j@parl.gc.ca

Please Stop

Just take your well deserved lumps Liberals, don't devise comical counter-motions, it doesn't help your credibility. Please, just stop:

Liberals will attempt to turn the tables today on rival parties who’ve ridiculed them for being afraid of toppling the minority Conservative government.

They’ll introduce a motion condemning the NDP and Bloc Quebecois for defeating the previous Grit government in November 2005, thereby enabling Stephen Harper’s Tories to win power.

The motion slams the Harper government for setting back women’s equality rights by cancelling such Liberal measures as the Court Challenges Program and a national child care program.

And it concludes by resolving that the House of Commons "condemn the irresponsible and self-serving actions on Nov. 25, 2005, by the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois which led to the installation of a government that is hostile to the rights and needs of vulnerable Canadians."

The above motion merely amplifies the Liberal woes, with such nonsensical language. Better to stay silent, than whine about the past. Ride it out, that's the price you pay for hiding behind the curtain, it just is.

UPDATE

Jeff brings word on another motion the Liberals are planning. This one has an air of authenticity.

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.

Delegate Math

A big night for Clinton, pretty much a best case scenario. Obama still has a measurable delegate lead, but in terms of optics, Clinton achieved what she needed to in spades. The whispers to end her campaign, over, Obama's inevitability, mute, what we have is a scenario which won't end anytime soon. There are many Democrats today, asking themselves where to we go from here?

The Obama argument still revolves around the delegate math, and while his lead is hardly impressive percentage wise, nor will it be enough to get the required majority, it is enough for his campaign to crow, enough for Clinton to face a daunting challenge. But hold on, there is a glaring ASTERISK here for Obama, and it speaks to the same "will of the people" argument, used to support his campaign. If Obama were to win, without the imput of voters from two huge states, Florida and Michigan, that detracts from the purity argument. In fact, in a race this close, this contentious, Democrats should be bending over backwards to find a way to include the shunned states, afterall the voters shouldn't be punished because of party rules, devised by non-elected hacks. With Clinton's victories last night, it is hardly surprising to see a new push developing.

Today in Salon:

Should Florida and Michigan vote again?

It will be extremely hard for Clinton to close Obama's lead in pledged delegates, but it will also be hard for Obama to win the number of delegates he needs to decisively win without superdelegates. Lately I find myself wondering: Why aren't more powerful Democrats in both the Obama and Clinton camps lobbying for a revote in Florida and Michigan?...

If the 366 delegates from these two states were somehow again in play, the daunting arithmetic that makes it almost impossible for Clinton to pass Obama in pledged delegates would be far more forgiving.

The Atlantic:

A Revote In Florida and Michigan?

But the idea makes a certain amount of sense.

The thinking, here, is that the ONLY way that Clinton makes up her delegate gap is to get Michigan and Florida's earned delegates to count. The ONLY way they count is to re-run the vote under the umbrella of the DNC's rules.

The chutzpah here is that she already won Florida -- and is challenging Obama, essentially, to a fair fight... daring him... saying, "I can win this fair and square... same with Michigan... let's give the voters in those states a real voice."

Obama's response would no doubt me: "Well, wait a minute. You and I agreed to the rules. And now you want to change them at the last minute?"

He may not have a choice: if Florida and Michigan resubmit delegate plans to the DNC, if the DNC approves the plans, and if the states can find a way to pay for primaries, the contests would be on.

Potential complications: who's paying? A Florida primary would cost $10M (though I'd bet HRC's supporters could raise $10M in a moment's notice to pay for it), and Michigan Dems -- some of them -- might want a primary.

The most likely dates: mid-April or mid-June.

Stay tuned...

There are 747 delegates left, 1113 if you include Florida and Michigan. I expect more people to buy into this idea of a re-vote in the two big states, the idea is hardly inconceivable, not even a stretch with some political will. No matter which candidate American Democrats back, there is a certain intrinsic appeal in ensuring that all 50 states have say, particularly in a race that is so competitive. With all the talk about super-delegates, is it really attractive to have a partial process, essentially decided by the party hack in the DNC. Yes, Michigan and Florida didn't follow the party rules, but beyond that, should that mean the voters are punished?

If all 50 states vote, and nobody has the required delegate count, at the very least, the leader has the moral clarity to declare victory. In a muddled race, disenfranchising certain voters, from two key states, leaves a bad taste, the process clearly flawed. It will be interesting to see how this storyline develops, the Clinton camp obviously on side, but the Obama camp might see the merit too. Last night gave Clinton life, and in the process, expect the Florida/Michigan debate to get much louder.

NDP Playing Politics With Cadman?

Before NDP supporters jump all over me, as some partisan Liberal, I ask the above question honestly. I admit complete confusion, in trying to understand the sudden about face we have seen from the NDP.

The same NDP MP Pat Martin, who initially pushed for the Ethics Committee to look into the matter, who said all other matters would be pushed aside, this issue would rocket to the top of the agenda, who tabled a motion to investigate, is now saying we should leave it the RCMP and the unproven Director of Public Prosecutions. Martin puts his faith in the RCMP, but then offers this contradictory assessment of their potential investigation:

Suggesting the RCMP often wears kid gloves in cases involving elected officials, he still believes the matter is best left to police -- and possibly the new office of public prosecutions....

"It is a straightforward matter -- it either happened or it didn't, and it's an extremely serious criminal offence that is best investigated by the RCMP or even better, the new director of public prosecutions," Martin told Sun Media.

"There is a lingering perception that the RCMP tread gently when investigating wrongdoing of elected officials, especially prime ministers."

Martin concludes the RCMP tread lightly, a perception that they may be apprehensive, and yet he puts his faith in them, choosing to dispose of another tool available. As it relates to the Director of Public Prosecutions, this person is beholden to the RCMP:

The PPSC is not an investigative agency. It prosecutes when a charge has been laid pursuant to an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or some other police force or investigative agency of a violation of federal law. The PPSC provides advice and assistance to investigators at the investigative stage and works closely with them, particularly in terrorism, criminal organization, proceeds of crime, money laundering, market fraud, and mega cases.

In essence, the Director seems irrelevant, unless the RCMP provides the latitude to move. The NDP elevates the new Director as some savior here, when in fact, the person is just an extension of pre-existing legal channels. If we take Martin at his word, he is content to let this entire matter rest in the hands of an entity that doesn't have his full confidence. Strange, to say the least.

It is for that reason, that I suspect the motivations are purely political, rather than the neat package presented. I tend to believe this rationale:

Some Liberals were surprised by the move and suggested that the New Democrats may be afraid that the Liberals would receive too much publicity if the committee were to look into the matter.

The NDP suffers from chronic "Liberal on the brain". We say the preamble as early as Thursday, when out of nowhere, the NDP seemed more interested in when the Liberals knew of Cadman, rather than the elephant in the room, as it related to the Conservatives. I found that kneejerk query odd, given the gravity of what was unfolding. In other words, why does it seem the always immediate calculation revolves around the Liberal Party, and does it seem like much of a stretch to believe that this weekend's about face on Cadman isn't an extension of the pre-occupation?

If the real focus is getting to the truth, then the NDP should be fighting to use all organs available, there should be a united opposition front. It is curious, that on a day when the opposition parties could first confront Harper over the tape, Layton chooses to ask a question about Obama instead. The nature of a leader's question is a calculation, a decision on a particular angle, the omission of Cadman is quite striking, left to surrogates to make the case.

Where it all seems to meet, the NDP has decided that they aren't particularly interested in a public spectacle, they prefer the subtle, and that begs the question, why? Could it have something to do with the Liberals?

Post Cadman Poll

Harris Decima, with a new poll taken over the weekend, which shows erosion for the Conservatives, in the wake of the Cadman affair:

A new poll suggests Stephen Harper's Conservatives have taken a beating in public opinion over the past week, but the opposition Liberals have done nothing to capitalize.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey had the two major parties in a statistical dead heat, with the Tories nominally ahead of the Liberals 31-30.

The governing party had been as high as 35 per cent in a previous Harris-Decima poll

While the Tories and Liberals appeared stalled, the NDP at 17 per cent and the Bloc Québécois at 8 per cent nationally were not big beneficiaries.

The survey's margin of error is 3.1 per cent, 19 times in 20, with wider margins for regional breakdowns.

The Green party, which has never elected an MP, rose to 13 per cent nationally and was actually a point ahead of the NDP in Ontario — 18-17.

There was an Angus Reid poll that asked what people thought of the Liberals budget reaction. These results might explain why the Liberals haven't capitalized on the Conservatives problems:

While Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion was critical of the budget, he immediately announced his party would not defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority government.

Only 24 per cent of those polled supported his actions, with 51 per cent saying they disapproved of his performance.

You don't draw people to the fold by demonstrating weakness and conflicting rhetoric. That fact might explain why people are moving to the Greens as an alternative to the corrupt Conservatives. Also, that fact might temper the Conservative bleeding, the Liberals unable to get maximum traction, due to their own actions.

I've heard more than one Conservative apologist say the budget was well received, this scandal wasn't resonating with average Canadians. I would counter, we have our first evidence that those people are delusional, this one has to hurt, anything but "inside the beltway".

Somewhat Super Tuesday

Tonight is make or break for Clinton, anything less than wins in Ohio and Texas, her campaign is effectively over. A quick breakdown of the polling averages:

Ohio:

Clinton 50.1%
Obama 43%

The late trends actually show an uptick for Clinton, a couple offering give her a double digit lead.

Texas:

Clinton 47.4%
Obama 45.7%

A deadheat, but again some late movement for Clinton, a couple polls give her the edge, outside of the margin of error. Texas has a very strange system, with a primary and a caucus, so we could have a situation where Clinton manages to win the popular vote, but Obama actually wins more delegates. Should be interesting, to say the least.

In the other two contests, Clinton leads in Rhode Island, Obama up big in Vermont.

Some argue that Clinton needs massive wins, if she is too close the delegate gap. While that is true, two wins in these crucial states, no matter the gap, will provide Clinton with enough momentum to stay in the race. Should Obama win either contest, then there will be growing pressure on Clinton to dropout.

Defiant

The two offending articles are still available on the Liberal website. I'm no expert on libel law, but I'm pretty good with common sense. The fact the links are still available suggests that the case against the Liberals maybe more theater than the biggest regret Liberals will ever know (somebody has seen the Godfather once too many times). Ignatieff confirmed that the Liberal hierarchy met with lawyers earlier today.

Obviously, the legal advice to the Liberals was such that they feel comfortable leaving the offending articles online. These aren't stupid people, if this was a clearcut case, the articles would be removed, promptly. I've heard two seperate libel experts today, both of which reacted with hesitation, very unclear if there was a case here. The media can repeat statements made in parliament, is a party website different? That point seems confusing. The basic gist of what I heard, the cases against Dion, Goodale and Ignatieff are flimsly, to the point of being a non-starter. What remains, the website, seems a gray area on certain levels, and the Liberal lawyers must agree, hence the articles stay online. I'm not suggesting there is nothing here, others can speak to that, but all the ejaculate from Conservative supporters today maybe a tad premature ;)

Dion and Dryden both took up the Conservative dare, both spoke outside of the House, both used language that was clear, if careful. It was quite obvious today, Liberals were speaking through the sift of legal editing. The fact the tone remained defiant is another indication that the legal team doesn't see the minefield the Harper bluster argues. If there is a libel chill, the Liberals have yet to catch a cold.

Dona Cadman On Harper

Dona Cadman has issued a press release today, wherein she says she believes Harper had no knowledge of the insurance offer:

Dona Cadman said Monday that she talked to Stephen Harper about a million-dollar life insurance policy that she alleges the Conservatives offered her late husband, Independent MP Chuck Cadman, and believed the prime minister when he said he had no knowledge about the matter.

"I recall specifically asking him if he was aware of a million-dollar insurance policy offer that upset Chuck [Cadman] so much," she said in a news release issued Monday.

"He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer. I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes. He said, yes, he'd had some discussions with two individuals about asking Chuck to rejoin the party, but he'd told them they were wasting their time trying to convince Chuck."

"If I didn't believe this to be true in my heart, I wouldn't be running for the Conservatives in Surrey North"

Interesting, to say the least.

The Cornered Animal

You know the old saying, the most dangerous animal of all is the one that is cornered. That is how I read Harper's attempt to sue the Liberal leadership, an act of desperation, the counter-attack to try and change the channel. What the suit demands be posted on Liberal.ca:

Last week Mr Ignatieff, Mr. Goodale and myself made defamatory statements falsely claiming that Prime Minister Stephen Harper acted illegally in matters concerning former British Columbia M.P. Chuck Cadman. Today, we acknowledge had acted ethically, morally and legally and retract the statments we made to the contrary. We apologize to the Prime Minister for the unfounded attacks we made on his reputation.

I'm not sure how the Liberals could post this demand on the website, given that we don't know that the PM "acted ethically, morally and legally", if that was the case, I suspect the RCMP wouldn't be investigating.

One of the articles in question, quotes Goodale, who details Harper's response in the audio interview, wherein he never denied the existence of a insurance offer, in fact he simply argues why he thought it was a bad idea. Can you be sued for simple deduction, can you be sued for asking pointed questions? I really have no idea, but I know one thing, Harper's own words damage his reputation, not the Liberals for pointing out the obvious.

We will have to see how this plays out, this is the first time a sitting Prime Minister has sued a Leader of the Opposition. I see this response as predictable, Harper loves to play hardball, when faced with a challenge, it's a tactic he prefers. Apparently, Dion was served bright and early this morning at Stornaway, which speaks to a weekend of Harper's inner circle developing a counter strategy. We have Cadman on Mike Duffy, that didn't work... The tape is altered, nope, sorry... Lets sue, developing...

If Harper is so interested in protecting his reputation, then maybe his two henchman could quit hiding and come forward to talk to the media, with Harper in tow, clear up this whole misunderstanding. Maybe Harper could give us a timeline, of what meetings took place, dates, who was present, because afterall, nothing to hide here right?

This suit is diversion, plain and simple, the last ditch effort to stop the slide. Anyone who is following this story, knows that in the end, it may be hard to prove in a legal sense. Cadman's daughter has alluded to the endgame, there is no paper trail, no emails, just the word of several people. The Conservatives have made this calculation as well, which is why they feel comfortable going on the offensive, assuming there is no smoking gun, beyond what we know.

Cadman Book Leak

You can get a leaked copy of "Like A Rock" online. Nothing particularly new on the Conservative bribery allegation, most of that has already been released. What I did find interesting, a couple passages, describing what the Liberals did in trying to sway Cadman. Quite a contrast, the supposed ethically challenged, dirty Liberals, take the high road and gain some respect:

"A few minutes before their distinguished Liberal guests( Dosanjh and Martin) arrived,Chuck and Dona wondered what they were going to be offered in an attempt to buy Chuck's vote. Both were pleasantly surprised"

Paul Martin:

He appealed to Chuck's sense ofreason, recognizing him to be a manof principle.

"In the conversation that I had with Chuck Cadman, and Dona was there-she heard rhe whole rhing as did Ujjal-he never asked for anything,"
Martin stressed.

"It never even occurred to us that he would want anything. It never even crossed our minds. The conversation totally took place on what was
the right thing for the country, and that is the only conversation that I believe that he would have tolerated or understood or accepted in any
event."

The Cadman's perspective:

After the prime minister left and Chuck and Dona were once again alone in their little apartment, they looked at each other with eyebrows raised and smiled.
"Well, what do you think about that?" Chuck inquired. "The prime minister sitting in our living room, with our IKEA furniture!"

After a pause, he added, "Well, they didn't offer anything, did they?"

"No, they didn't," Dona agreed, with surprise in her voice.

"That's kind ofinteresting," Chuck mused.

He respected Paul Martin for not trying to buy him. Dona figured Vjjal Dosanjh had a hand in that. "I think Vjjal had a lot to do with that, knowing that he couldn't be bought. I think it showed
a lot of class."

I guess the Cadman's were surprised at the Liberals, given the Santa Claus routine from the other suitor party. I just find it interesting, that the Liberals acted with class, the Conservatives anything but. What a hard pill for Conservatives to swallow, their moral construct, which generates their false disdain is just an illusion, they were duped. No better, in the minds of the Cadman's, much worse in fact.

Liberals Can't Go On Cadman

Anyone who bothers to read this blog knows that I am firmly in the "hawk" camp, as it relates to the Liberals forcing an election. However, given the position the Liberals have publicly taken on the budget, to suddenly pivot and decide to bring down the government invites strong criticism.

I don't see any danger of a "blowback" over Cadman itself, as others have argued. Not only does this scandal pass the smell test, it is a reeking heap of smoldering bison dung. I have no worries that the Liberals could pay a political price for forcing this issue, it will remain a point of debate for months to come.

Why I hesitate, in adopting Turner's "pull the plug" advice over Cadman, it is just too opportunistic to be credible. Last week, Liberals spent their entire time trying to develop clever ways to avoid an election. This scandal breaks, and then suddenly, Liberals have found a solid spine, it's time to go. The chronology is too cute for words, and I doubt Canadian voters would be overly impressed with the obvious motivations. No, the Liberals have made their bed, the opportunity has passed, the optics of a reversal are dreadful.

This scandal will fester for quite some time, the ethics committee work guarantees a steady diet, not to mention what the RCMP comes up with. In other words, we have time to use this issue tactically, without appearing ridiculously opportunistic and hypocritical. When I say time, a few weeks is sufficient, allow something else to percolate, so the argument isn't entirely about Cadman.

I would suggest this looming showdown over the Canadian Wheat Board will provide the cover, a perceived genuine stance, enough to look credible. If the Conservatives want to force this issue down the Liberals throat, then it provides the perfect occasion to say enough is enough, with Cadman lurking, an almost certain election issue. In my mind, that's the smart play, avoid the quick kneejerk, lie in wait and then pounce on another matter, apart from the one's the Liberals have already compromised. The Liberals must avoid the frame of naked opportunism, that is the only way that Cadman doesn't work against the government.

That Other Election Issue

While people debate whether or not the Liberals should go to an election over the Cadman affair, there is another developing issue that could help the Liberal cause. Everyone knows, the key for the Liberals is Ontario, if they are too defeat the government. A recent poll that gauges opinion regarding the war of words between the federal government and the provincial Liberals suggests fertile ground for the argument that Ontario is not a priority for this government:

A new poll suggests Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has a lot of public support in his continuing feud with federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey looked at the war of words between the two politicians, in which Mr. McGuinty accuses Mr. Flaherty of concentrating too much on the oil-and-gas sector, and giving short shrift to troubled manufacturers.

Nationally, the poll suggests 47 per cent of respondents sided with Mr. McGuinty, with only 27 per cent backing Mr. Flaherty.

In Ontario, the poll found 56 per cent support for the Premier and 25 per cent for the minister.

The survey suggested 39 per cent of Albertans backed Mr. Flaherty, with only 27 per cent backing Mr. McGuinty.

I suspect the national support for McGuinty is helped by Quebecers, who are also concerned about their manufacturing base. In Ontario, the numbers are overwhelming for McGuinty, Flaherty's attacks are clearly failing. Interestingly, Flaherty apparently didn't get the memo, as he was at it again just yesterday:

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty launched a post-budget blitz today by lecturing provinces on the need to lower taxes and taking a swipe at Premier Dalton McGuinty for making Ontario "the last place" in Canada to start a business.

This poll tells us a few things, all of which are good news for the Liberals. The Conservatives have made this a partisan fight with the Premier of Ontario, and in that sense, he may well have a role to play in the national campaign. McGuinty's presence could clearly be a plus in this regard, as he enjoys great support in arguing Ontario's case, pointing out the disporportionate focus of the government. McGuinty can make the case on the economy, as well as on the Conservative seat-distribution proposal, which clearly works against Ontario, the "small man of confederation" could play a big role in weaving a coherent theme of bias against Ontario.

These results also reveal, in quite stark terms, that Ontarians don't believe the federal government has their interests at heart. This nervousness provides the basic theme of any Liberal campaign, as they can clearly fill the void in Ontario. If Dion can make the case, he has a willing audience, which allows for some optimism.

But, You Were Supposed To Be Different

The apologists main line of defence, regarding the Cadman affair, rehash what the Liberals did, Stronach, Grewal, etc. Even if you accept the comparison, in my view, it only serves as proof of Conservative hypocrisy. Remember, this is the party that ran on moral superiority, a return to honesty and ethical standards. The dirty Liberals, mired in scandal, a craven group that would do anything to hold power, abusing their privilege, betraying the public trust. The Conservatives were different, with pius zeal, thrusting themselves onto the pedestal.

At the very least, what we have learned, sketchy ethical lines are not a partisan domain. Conservatives must come to grips with a harsh reality, they are no better, possibly worse, than the crazen Liberals, of which they despise. The more people bring up the Liberal past, the more they acknowledge that their own party plays by similar rules, are equally as suspect.

A tough pill to swallow, because really the banner was always about accountability, clean government, high standards. Corruption was the domain of others, allowing for some false sense of superiority, tsk, tsk. It has to be hard for Conservative supporters, coming to grips with reality, they are not the moralists, the white knights pure as snow. No, in arguing that the Liberals did things, they also must confront the fact that their party rolls in the mud with the best of them.

Patronage appointments, dodgy financial election tactics, scandal, the pursuit of power at all costs, no longer specific to a hated entity, but clearly a bi-partisan condition. What a painful revelation, no longer can supporters cling to the illusion, the moral arrogance evaporated, mere men of questionable character, forced to use past Liberal deeds as justification for the same. Ouch.