04.08.2011 08:24 AM

Hookers, money laundering and PMO

…and another Reformatory campaign day gets blown to smithereens.

Perhaps they will order the RCMP to physically remove pesky journalists who ask questions about the latest Carson scandal.

41 Comments

  1. eattv says:

    I just had an idea, so I thought I’d post it here in case any Liberal apparatchiks might think it has merit:

    What if Iggy did a Question of the Day? They could pick out a question emailed in by any plain ol’ (non screened) Canadian. MI could briefly address it on camera while on the bus (Hi, Mary from Saskatoon. Great question. Here’s what I think…”). Then they post a new one every day to their YouTube account.

    The way I see it, this would highlight the differences between Iggy’s style and Harper’s style. They could even call it Answer of the Day, just to drive home the point.

    The funniest thing is if Harper tried something like this, it would just reinforce the fact that he’s communicating from inside the bubble. 😀

    • Namesake says:

      He already does that in his Town Halls / Open Mikes — incl. the reveal of the platform last week (tho’ admittedly the email ones are vetted, but the live in-person ones aren’t),

      and apparently he’s proposing to include regular people’s q’s into the HOC’s QP, as well… I heard that on TV, the National, I think.

      • MCBellecourt says:

        That is correct, Namesake. In the first week of the campaign, Ignatieff made mention of it. CBC carried the story.

        I really like the idea. Now that’s Open and Accountable!

  2. smelter rat says:

    Made my day.

  3. Gretschfan says:

    I keep asking myself what the Liberals have done to have invited such good karma in this campaign so far.

    • catherine says:

      Karma? Maybe a bit of luck, but largely hard work, intelligence and commitment.

      I think Ignatieff is giving it his all, and he appears to have a competent team backing him. While Ignatieff has the disadvantage of competing with a skilled incumbent with no big *practical* liabilities (e.g. economic disaster of his own doing, etc.), his competition has made it easier by choosing to campaign on fear and negativity and seemingly being a paranoid, control freak. Still, a very difficult fight, particularly where Ignatieff started from with a badly damaged reputation from effective attack ads and a tarnished brand. If things are going to shift noticeably, it will have to start in earnest shortly after the debates.

  4. Roger says:

    I wonder which Liberal candidate will be exposed today….we’ve got racism and sexism in the big red tent so far…and whether the drones in the media want to report it or not, people are taking notice regardless…and the facct that Reilly is still on the ballot is mind blowing…..

    • Namesake says:

      But it wasn’t sexism in the case of that ex-judge Wild Rose candidate, numbnuts: it was REALISM. His point was that there’s a very large spectrum of incidents that are classified as sexual assaults (perpetrated by both sexes, idiot), with different degrees of severity, and different degrees of intent, and so the CPC’s dumb on crime idea of tying judges’ hands and forcing them to impose three-year prison sentences on ALL malefactors IS dumb, esp. since it would probably PRODUCE far more hardened criminals than a system that includes counselling and conditional release as part of the toolkit.

      And who made that point? Tom Flanagan, yesterday, on Power & Politics, who said it was a big mistake for all the parties to be kneecapping someone like this who knows more about that subject after a couple of decades on the bench than the rest of us put together.

      • Roger says:

        and there’s the name calling….predictable….anyways, Iggy even called the comments “disgusting”…….who’s running the liberal party then?

        • “who’s running the liberal party then?” More like Who’s running the PMO?

          That the CPC has become so sloppy is a real issue. They’re in Contempt of Parliament for not providing transparent, accurate budget estimates for prisons. They’re in Contempt of Parliament for not providing transparent, accurate budget estimates for F-35s. Even John McCain called the F-35 cost overruns a disgrace so how is it when Parliament asks for more information they get ignored?

          Now more details emerge about Mr. Carson’s relationships, someone that should have had a thorough back ground check before being hired as an advisor to Mr. Harper.

          Roger, changing the channel won’t change the facts.

  5. Namesake says:

    Wow, so he’s our own, much older, much uglier, much unfunnier Charlie Sheen. (By way of Fred Gwynne.) Soon he’ll be singing the old Warren Zevon song: “Send Lawyers, Guns and Money”

  6. Trent says:

    WK, you’re really stretching on this one. Do you truly believe that the PM should know every detail of his his employees personal lives?

    • Warren says:

      Yes, I do. And I can tell you the RCMP know a lot about staffer’s activities all the time – and they tell the PM’s COS. I know that.

      • The poster formerly known as James says:

        Turrets?

      • Trent says:

        WK,

        If you apply that same logic to the Liberals then it means the Liberals are a bunch of white supremacists. I don’t believe that, I also don’t believe every Liberal is a thief because of ADSCAM. Nor do I buy the contempt garbage because the opposition parties acted as accuser, prosecution, judge and jury. It’s the very definition of how you railroading someone.

        Liberals have a good record of fiscal management under Cretién and Martin, I suggest Liberals stick to that and stay away from ‘Gotcha!’ politics.

        I’ll check back with you on May 3rd.

      • smelter rat says:

        Three words, Gord: Go fuck yourself.

    • Namesake says:

      Not every detail of all his employees, obviously, but:

      a person who’s given access to Top Secret files (like the ‘how do we spin how much of a mess the Afghan mission is today’ brief that was his special baby), who’s:

      – got a string of fraud convictions, and who
      – was in hock up to his neck at the time, and
      – obviously has a penchant for the ladies, of all kinds, and
      – is thus eminently subject to being blackmailed and coerced into tailoring his advice to the PM or intervening on certain files on behalf of his blackmailers…

      should the PM know about that before he makes someone a senior policy adviser IN the PMO… someone that Flanagan’s described as his “right-hand man” …and veto him accordingly?

      Um, YEAH. And you’re “really stretching” the ‘Stand by your Man’ band of denial into its extreme tolerances on this… it’ll be fun to watch it snap.

    • Let’s not forget — Carson disclosed his past to 2006 to Ian Brodie, then Harper’s Chief of Staff — and this was done *before* the clearance application was completed and forwarded on to the PCO security office.

      If Brodie knew, Harper knew, and they knew before any clearance work was completed.

  7. C.W. says:

    In Buzzetti’s interesting Le Devoir piece on faith-healing Conservative MPs, the video of Jason Kenney trying to prohibit free speech while a student in San Francisco is priceless. Jason Kenney – just visiting.

    http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/elections-2011/320583/des-fous-de-dieu-chez-les-conservateurs

  8. MontrealElite says:

    Harper says you can not tax your way to prosperity.

    But you sure can borrow it.

  9. MontrealElite says:

    Harper will cut deficit a year earlier than expected.

    This can be done when all your numbers are made up anyhow.

  10. Namesake says:

    So, I’m watching Harper’s platform infomercial on CPAC, live from Mississauga…

    …and he IS doing a Phil Donahue shtick, cozying up to “real people” sitting in arm chairs as props, permitted to speak a few words each, to show that they’ll all be benefiting from all the little boutique tax credits in the new budget.

    So, waiting for Cat to eat crow for her comment about the talk show optics of the Lib. platform launch, the other day….

  11. Northern PoV says:

    Harper’s degree of desperation for a majority exactly mirrors his terror of what is to come.
    CON-templating Sheila Fraser alone must give him plans to seek asylum in Bahrain. Elections Canada is on his case. Billy Elliot won’t be at the helm of the RCMP soon and his credibility as an impartial top-cop is in tatters in any case. So many Bruce-Carson-type scandals bubbling away. He only chance to control flow of information is a majority gov’t.

  12. JH says:

    So let’s try a little balance here.
    With regard to the name calling issue, I would note someone once said ‘insults are the last resort of those with no argument’, make of that what you will.
    I also note that last night on P&P, the Canadian Press’s Jennifer Ditchburn, hardly an example of an unbiased press, did admit if Judge Reilly was a Conservative candidate the press and the Liberal Party would be all over this unceasingly. I give her props for honesty on this one at least.
    I also note that David Akin on his blog says the judge has had more than one accusation of leniency to sex offenders and in fact has been reversed on more than on occasion.
    http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011/4/7/4790316.html
    Many posters on here have referred to certain failures of politicians as character issues and I have agreed with them.
    Is this then a character issue for Mr. Ignatieff? Quite a number at coffe this am thought so.

    • Namesake says:

      Look, a guy who calls the media “drones,”

      and the judge who objects to the inappropriateness of indiscriminate 3-year mandatory sentences a “sexist”

      hardly gets to cry foul about being tagged with a common military term for people not too swift on the uptake:

      http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/numbnuts

      As for Jennifer Ditchburn hardly being an example of an unbiased press: pish-posh; she’s a member of the CP, a fully independent news org., and the incident you cite is EVIDENCE of her lack of bias.

      So, Reilly was a liberal judge in a Conservative province who overturned some of his rulings? Surprise, surprise… maybe that’s why the Libs tapped him to be a candidate.

      Does that make him a “sexist”? Um, no: we’d have to look at the details of each case, wouldn’t we, to look at his & the appeal court’s reasons for their diverging views on the appropriateness of a particular sentence for a particular case.

      But that would require analysis, not sound bites, so I’m not holding my breath that you’ll provide it.

  13. Bob says:

    Quote from Lonesome Dove: Ride with Outlaws … Hang with Outlaws

    • JH says:

      I like that! As for the rest of the comments – actually below par today. You folks can do better. And even the media themselves on various panels have been agreeing they are acting like drones (only I didn’t use the word), re real issues etc. Did you catch the panel on the National last night?
      Things may change and we may bet some balanced policy discussions from here on in and real reporting.

  14. Emily says:

    Yeah, JH, well this am you met only coffee drinking conservative supporters. C’mon over to the dark side … sip a stronger and better coffee (even a latte?) with me and my pals. ;0) We were enjoying the coverage of Ignatieff from Hamilton.

  15. fritz says:

    Bruce Carson is the gift that just keeps on giving.

    This was set to be a bad day for Ignatieff; with the press asking questions about Judge Reilly instead of the LPC message of the day. But along comes Bruce to the rescue and now the press will only be interested in his latest escapade with a hooker.

    Ignatieff got lucky here and you can count me in the camp that says he should have dumped Reilly yesterday. I do give props to Ignatieff for sticking with a top flight candidate who made a stupid mistake; making a nuanced comment in an election campaign. After all he has as much chance of actually winning that riding as Bruce Carson (actually Carson would probably have a better shot) so dumping him means nothing re the election outcome.

    The Jennifer Ditchburn comment that I liked best was when she said ‘the press would have treated the story differently if Reilly had been a Tory’. As hard as it is for me to admit it there’s a lot of truth in that line.

    • JH says:

      We’re in agreement with regards to the Ditchburn comment.
      I’m told there’s a lot of talk amongst the press on the buses today about Ditchburn and her remarks. I’m also told there’s lots of sheepish looking reporters around the campaigns, as they are reminded of them. I wonder will she be ostracized for embarrassing her colleagues?

      • Namesake says:

        you’re told: by whom, kady’s infoalertbot?

        http://twitter.com/InfoAlerteBot

        I’m told conservative operatives aren’t the most reliable sources. And that trolls belong under bridges… with their leader.

        • JH says:

          Are you stalking me? And are we back to names (trolls?). I mean I’m sorry that you feel I’ve offended your command of this blog, but I do believe folks are allowed to post contrary opinions to yours. WK has indicated all opinions are welcome. And yes I do know some folks in the MSM, if that’s ok with you? But I’m admittedly a luddite about twitter, facebook etc. so can’t help you about the Kady thing.
          Perhaps you’d just prefer I stopped posting, since disagreement seems to be an issue for you and no doubt you feel entitled to your entitlements, even though this elitist supercilious attitude does not play well with those of us amongst the great unwashed, you hope to garner support from.

          • Namesake says:

            Hey, by def., someone who wanders into the enemy partisan camp and talks smack or tries to poo-poo the day’s strategies or events on the Internet IS a troll, esp. during the actual election; and,

            ask one of your MSM buds — or just google — who Kady is (it’s the no. 1 & 2 result, even w/o restricting it to Canada); and,

            the entitlements these days are reserved for the settlements for the PMO’s appointees as rewards for non-disclosure about why they didn’t do their jobs of protecting people who try to expose gov’t wrongdoing

            Cancel ex-integrity czar’s $500,000 severance deal, Ottawa told, Globe and Mail, March 7, 2011
            http://urlm.in/hmla

  16. Namesake says:

    So, check out this still photo from Harper’s event this morning in front of a hand-picked partisan crowd, unveiling his new Bait&Switch-Budget-Redux platform:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/08/cv-election-day14.html

    I don’t need a PhD in reading facial micro-expressions like the lead character in the ‘Lie to Me’ TV show to see:

    Contempt, personified.

    Contempt for the voters.

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/08/what-changed-in-the-last-17-days/

  17. The Doctor says:

    Isn’t the real underreported story the apparent decline in NDP support, particularly in Ontario? When I look at the daily poll tracking, most CPC/LPC movement is within margins of error or not terribly outside of it. The one party that has a clear trend outside the margin of error is the NDP, and that trend is down. Good news for Team Liberal, I guess.

    I really wonder about the NDP role in this election. I get the feeling that in their bellies, the NDP can’t really bring themselves to go hard after Ignatieff, because they loathe Harper so much more. I also get the feeling that the NDP didn’t really head into this campaign with much of a clear idea of what to do about Ignatieff as an opponent. I think they were too busy thinking about Harper. I remember some pundits thinking, at the time the government was brought down, that this was not necessarily a wise move by the NDP in terms of realpolitik self-interest. It looks like they might have been correct about that.

    And I’ve never thought that Layton or any other Dipper whining about the Liberals poaching from the NDP platform was very effective politically. Why would the average voter care? Most voters don’t give a damn where an idea or policy came from, they just care whether it’s good and/or they like it.

  18. PoliticalPundit says:

    The Prime Minister is briefed regularly by the heads of all of Canada’s security apparatus.

    Harper’s plausible deniability approach is merely smoke and mirrors. Rather than getting ahead of the scandal PM Harper by apologizing for his bad judgment he opted to ask the RCMP to give him enough cover until the election is over!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*