• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

I think - and I want to stipulate, I think - the argument around Duffy is hinging on this: when confronted with Duffy's wrongdoing, the PMO's instinct was to cover it up rather than hang Duffy out to dry.

Imagine this: Duffy goes to Nigel Wright and says "This is what happened, this is how much I owe" and, rather than trying to help Duffy out or cover up the expenses, Wright says "tough luck, Duff". Wright then calls the Leader of the Government in the Senate and requests that the Conservative caucus in the Senate to convene a vote to expel Duffy from caucus.

If Wright does that, rather than what he actually did, does anyone imagine this is a story?

The issue with Wright and the PMO isn't what Duffy did, it's that it looks like they tried to cover up what Duffy did.

All of which is entirely in character with how Harper manages the PMO....which is a major reason why people who pay attention have never bought the idea of him not knowing.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

True. The PM lying about people in his office's involvement in an illegal payment scheme really is not a big deal.
sgt-schultz-nothing.gif

What was illegal about the payment?
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Don't kid yourself. The only people who don't know that the campaign trail is a trial are the people who've never been on it.

The press and the public will impanel themselves as a grand jury at every opportunity.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

The most irritating thing about partisan (not ideological) Liberals in this country is that their continued success through much of the 20th Century imbued their core supporters with a belief that the Party has a divine right to govern.

That's why most of their core partisans can't understand why the Sponsorship scandal pissed off the electorate and led to them being dumped out on their ass.

I would like to point out that what Mike Duffy did was immoral, unethical and will probably result in him being convicted. But the money in question was repaid to the treasury.

Pretty sure we're still waiting on the return of the Sponsorship cash.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

We still have no proof of what the PM knew or didn't know. He's not on trial.

It takes a hell of a suspension of belief to accept that the Prime Minister who has probably controlled his PMO with the most iron of fists in Canadian history, didn't know about this.

If Harper was the type to you know, allow information to move freely in and out of the PMO, and allowed his people to do more than scratch their balls without his say so, or without sticking to approved methods, policies, talking points, etc...then maybe I'd buy that he didn't know. But he's the polar opposite of that.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

It takes a hell of a suspension of belief to accept that the Prime Minister who has probably controlled his PMO with the most iron of fists in Canadian history, didn't know about this.

If Harper was the type to you know, allow information to move freely in and out of the PMO, and allowed his people to do more than scratch their balls without his say so, or without sticking to approved methods, policies, talking points, etc...then maybe I'd buy that he didn't know. But he's the polar opposite of that.
...and now that we have an eye witness that confirms that Ray Novak knew that Wright paid off Duffy, because he and Novak were in the room when Wright announced he'd be doing so, we also have to believe that this iron-fisted control freak has been lied to for the past couple of years by his chief of staff, but doesn't really mind when his key employees lie to him and keep important information from him, because Novak still has his job as of today.

But hey, nothing to see here, move along, etc., etc.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

The most irritating thing about partisan (not ideological) Liberals in this country is that their continued success through much of the 20th Century imbued their core supporters with a belief that the Party has a divine right to govern.

That's why most of their core partisans can't understand why the Sponsorship scandal pissed off the electorate and led to them being dumped out on their ass.

I would like to point out that what Mike Duffy did was immoral, unethical and will probably result in him being convicted. But the money in question was repaid to the treasury.

Pretty sure we're still waiting on the return of the Sponsorship cash.

In the life of most ruling political parties there comes an event that peels back a few layers of the onion and showed what type of endemic corruption exists. Now, we're not talking about Mexican levels of corruption here with Sponsorship, or the Duffy scandal, but it pretty clearly illustrates what members of the ruling party think they have the right to do in performance of their jobs, what they think they're shielded from because of their positions of power.

For the Liberals, a relatively innocuous scandal helped create the political traction to bring them down. ~10 years later, it really looks like the same is about to happen to the Conservatives, where a "nothing" scandal that involves relatively small amounts of money, showed the inner workings of the party apparatus. The media refused to let either go, and both became election issues concerning the general trust that swing voters had for their sitting governments.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

It takes a hell of a suspension of belief to accept that the Prime Minister who has probably controlled his PMO with the most iron of fists in Canadian history, didn't know about this.

If Harper was the type to you know, allow information to move freely in and out of the PMO, and allowed his people to do more than scratch their balls without his say so, or without sticking to approved methods, policies, talking points, etc...then maybe I'd buy that he didn't know. But he's the polar opposite of that.

Don't let the folksy chatter of Chretien or the dithering dialogue of the temperamental Martin fool you into thinking that they didn't have complete control of the information flowing in and out of the PMO.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

In the life of most ruling political parties there comes an event that peels back a few layers of the onion and showed what type of endemic corruption exists. Now, we're not talking about Mexican levels of corruption here with Sponsorship, or the Duffy scandal, but it pretty clearly illustrates what members of the ruling party think they have the right to do in performance of their jobs, what they think they're shielded from because of their positions of power.

For the Liberals, a relatively innocuous scandal helped create the political traction to bring them down. ~10 years later, it really looks like the same is about to happen to the Conservatives, where a "nothing" scandal that involves relatively small amounts of money, showed the inner workings of the party apparatus. The media refused to let either go, and both became election issues concerning the general trust that swing voters had for their sitting governments.

Well, the other problem is that political parties at the highest levels become socially insular. The people who work together end up being the people who socialize together. Even when certain members leave the central power nexus, whether that's the Prime Minister's Office, a Party Headquarters or a Premier's Office, they don't usually go far. They end up at communications or public affairs terms in the private sector and they usually end up recommending people for jobs in Ministers' offices or the First Minister's Office.

The only change among the courtiers usually comes when the electorate changes the King. That's where that culture of entitlement tends to come from.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Well, the other problem is that political parties at the highest levels become socially insular. The people who work together end up being the people who socialize together. Even when certain members leave the central power nexus, whether that's the Prime Minister's Office, a Party Headquarters or a Premier's Office, they don't usually go far. They end up at communications or public affairs terms in the private sector and they usually end up recommending people for jobs in Ministers' offices or the First Minister's Office.

The only change among the courtiers usually comes when the electorate changes the King. That's where that culture of entitlement tends to come from.

It's rare for a party to "rebuild" itself without getting kicked out first. You basically need a completely inept and divided opposition to survive one of these "breaking" scandals. That's how Wynne won - she was facing a divided opposition, and a horrible PC party. And it's how the PCs in Alberta maintained power for so long - they never faced that unique challenger that could defeat them. It hasn't really been until their last scandal that that finally tipped the scales for them. At this point, it would be the only way for the Conservatives to win - they need the Liberals and NDP to cannibalize each other.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

It's rare for a party to "rebuild" itself without getting kicked out first. You basically need a completely inept and divided opposition to survive one of these "breaking" scandals. That's how Wynne won - she was facing a divided opposition, and a horrible PC party. And it's how the PCs in Alberta maintained power for so long - they never faced that unique challenger that could defeat them. It hasn't really been until their last scandal that that finally tipped the scales for them. At this point, it would be the only way for the Conservatives to win - they need the Liberals and NDP to cannibalize each other.

Yeah, I kinda had a front row seat for that one.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Don't let the folksy chatter of Chretien or the dithering dialogue of the temperamental Martin fool you into thinking that they didn't have complete control of the information flowing in and out of the PMO.

The PMO is literally bigger now than it has ever been before.

And, your response is entirely besides the point, and completely ignores what Mindz said. Which is convenient, because you seem entirely unwilling to even contemplate the obvious deduction the flows from all the evidence available to you.

Instead, for whatever reason you invoke Chretien and Martin. Partisan much?
 
Back
Top