The professionals seem to always say it better thank I can. Andrew Coyne has this excellent column on the Grewal tapes.
On the criminality of the situation:
...we have a right to expect more of people in public life than that they should not actually commit any crimes. ... it is abundantly clear (assuming the tapes have been accurately transcribed) that they were flouting the intent of the law. They were promising “rewards” -- Cabinet appointments, diplomatic postings, Senate seats, all were discussed -- to the Grewals if they abstained from voting against the government in the confidence vote.
Who is responsible:
...It was not, then, cash on the barrel. It was a promissory note, backed by the full faith and credit of the Prime MinisterÂ’s chief of staff -- and by extension, the Prime Minister himself. [emphasis added]
And on what the government minister should have done:
...Ethically, they are forbidden, not only from making explicit promises of public offices in exchange for an MPÂ’s vote, but from any tacit understanding to that effect; they are required, not only to refrain from deliberately creating such an impression, but to take care that they do not do so inadvertently.
The conclusion:
By whatever standard, they have failed in their duties. Their final responsibility, accordingly, is to submit their resignations, at least pending the resolution of opposition complaints to the ethics commissioner and the RCMP. If they will not do so of their own accord, it is the Prime MinisterÂ’s responsibility to demand it of them. And if he will not do so, or give a fuller explanation of his own involvement in this squalid affair, then it is his resignation that should be demanded next.
I say it is too late. As the Prime Minister, Paul Martin should do the right thing and resign due to his failure to uphold the standards of ethical behaviour required for Members of Parliament within his CabinetcaucusCacus. Mr. Dosanjh should also resign for his part in this affair. In addition, it is clear to me that the "rewards" and the procedures for dealing with the aftermath were used with others who crossed the floor. Therefore, I call upon Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison and Ujjal Dosanjh (again) to resign.
You heard it here first.
Update: Let it Bleed seems to agree and points out a story by Chantel Hebert where she states that Liberal solidarity may be crumbling.
6 comments:
Actually, second, if Andrew Coyne thought of it first....
Bill
Coyne suggeested it, but I am calling for it, so I think I am before him.
I concede the point; either way it is a cry from the wilderness. Now here is something that Stephen Harper should be stepping all over and yet he has not. And again he has not done a goood job of communicating. When these ripe cherries of exemplary corruption have fallen into his lap he has not seized the moment and made use of them. It baffles me why he would not, because this is surely a better way to sway voters and influence the common viewpoint rather than holding Parliament hostage. This is the devoid leadership that has allowed the Fiberals to remain in power, slurping at the trough for far too long. Politics is the battlefield. Again a squandered chance.
And which element within the Conservatives backed Stephen Harper into the leadership?
Criticism of Harper's leadership. Not exactly an original point. Though I think it is reasonable to criticise him for failure to get traction on this issue, I find it hard to figure how I, or anyone, would have done better. The only reasonable criticism I have seen of the Conservitives handeling of the Grewal tapes it that they should have released them sooner.
I disagree. The fact that they released them in bits ensured the topic was kept in the news cycle. All the time spent by Paul Wells calling for the release could only help to focus more attention on the issue. And since everyone is playing Monday morning quarterback, based on the present problem where a small portion of the tapes (40+ seconds) may not have made it to the electronic copy, perhaps they shoud have taken longer to ensure it was bulletproof.
Of course, this leades you to your most boring and obvious conclusion: The evil SoCons supported Harper for the leadership.
This is getting tiring. If I remember correctly, Haper won the leadership with over 80% of the support of party members. I think it was 89%. Please correct me if I am wrong. Needless to say, it was a large majority. Are you saying that 80+% of the CPC are SoCons? If so, you might as well vote Fiberal because us "normal" conservatives will never get through that.
As I said before, please offer some proof that SoCons control the CPC.
Stephen Harper is not a good leader because he does not engage the media nor the public to show he is credible or believable. He has every opportunity and a plate full of scanadals but he can't turn it around on the Fiberals and keep the pressure on them. He might be a wise man and a principled one but he comes across as elitist and too cerebral. He can't connect with the common man and therefore he can't get past the stereotypes that the Fiberals paste him with. Everyone knows Paul Martin is a two-faced scoundrel, but when Harper tries to staple it to PMPM it backfires. That is the reality. He doesn't have enough charisma. He should be on the news every night not for scandals and corruption but talking about the problems for cities etc. He should let his subordinates attack like pitbulls while he stays above the fray remaining reasonable. His speech after the PM on the sponsorship scandal sounded vitriolic and shrill. That didn't play well for voters.
As for proof of socon control of the CPC, I cannot provide proof just like you can't provide proof they do not influence policy decisions. I would suggest that the fact that the party has not made bolder moves to eliminate the hint of social policy reform is one symptom of their influence. But that was not the point, the point was whether or not it was possible to control the CPC with socons and you claimed it was unlikely. IF the CPC could show the voters that it was not in the grasp of socons then that may persuade some of those middle ground voters.
Good points about Harper's leadership. I think you (assuming I am speaking to the same person) are finally begining to be able to string together a logical argument.
However, you lose it in your second paragraph. Note this line:
"As for proof of socon control of the CPC, I cannot provide proof just like you can't provide proof they do not influence policy decisions."
These are not two sides of the same coin.
I never suggested that SoCons do not have some infulence over the CPC. Everything has some influnce over everything else. The SoCons influence the Liberal, though perhaps in a negative way.
I asked you to show some proof the SoCons CONTROL, not influence, the CPC, which was your original point. You said control, not me, so prove it.
But you cannot, because it is not true.
My point is that the SoCons do not control the CPC because if they did, it would be reflected in their policy, which it is not. Why control something and then not use that control. Unless....it's a CONSPIRICY and a Hidden Agenda(tm).
I suggest you dust off the tin foil hat.
Post a Comment