• …and the scandal, naturally, is in the “yes” of the beholder: Last night, CBC News broke this story about former Conservative cabinet minister Helena Guergis.  Said the CBC:  “CBC News has learned that the “serious allegations” Prime Minister Stephen Harper referred to last year in connection with former Conservative MP Helena Guergis included unsubstantiated claims of fraud, extortion and involvement with prostitutes.  But a letter written by a Harper aide and obtained by CBC News states that the Prime Minister’s Office learned the allegations had been made by a Toronto private investigator. The letter also reveals the allegations were not based on any hard evidence.”
• Get that?  Neat trick: The story details – in as much salacious detail as possible – the stuff that someone, somewhere, was saying about Guergis.  The story tells you all about it!  And then it notes, almost as an afterthought, that the allegations – which the CBC has succeeded in Krazy-Gluing to your brain – weren’t based on any “hard evidence.” But, dammit, we’re going to give you all the dirt anyway, even if it is total bullshit!
• I used to be an investigative reporter. At the Ottawa Citizen and the Calgary Herald. There is virtually nothing I have done in my life that was as rewarding.  I probed the suspicious deaths at the Hospital for Sick Kids (and concluded there were no murders), and kickbacks at the Ottawa Courthouse (and succeeded in getting the most senior official there removed from his job).  In my experience, you can’t just run with a single document as big page one scoop.  You need more than that – you need context. And you need to closely examine the motives of the person who ultimately gave you the document, very carefully.  Ask yourself – and the answer in anonymous source stories, the answer is almost always “yes” – this: “Am I being used?”
• The context here is crucial. It’s the middle of an election campaign, for the love of God: do you think – just for a minute – that a story like this landing in the middle of said election campaign is, well, a bit suspicious? Does it mean, perhaps, that Guergis’ independent challenge of the Conservative Party’s candidate might be getting traction?  That running with this story, as CBC did, assists the Conservative government which, not coincidentally, is ultimately responsible for the CBC’s fiscal health?
• Here are some questions that could have been asked: Why was Guergis fired, and her reputation destroyed, for unproven gossip about prostitutes – when Bruce Carson, in proven fact, waltzed into Stephen Harper’s 24 Sussex with a hooker, and later introduced another hooker to half of cabinet?  Why was he given a big patronage appointment, for which he apparently lobbied without registering?  Why was he given the big PMO office – him, a convicted fraudster who served time? And why was Guergis ground into meat, and then thrown to the dogs?  If I get a private detective to pass along a few rumours to the RCMP and/or a CPC lawyer about the after-hours lives of John Baird, John Kenney and Rob Anders, will that mean their careers will be over, too?  Not on your life. She’s a girl. They’re all boys.
• More is found: Here and here and here.  It’s going to be “the story of the day” on the campaign trail – says, naturally, the CBC.  I carry no brief for Helena Guergis.  I hope the Liberal candidate wins (and perhaps he was on the way to doing so, before this).  But this “story” truly is a scandal – not for what Guergis did (because it’s now clear she was fired without cause).  It’s a scandal for what was done to her. And for what is still being done to her.  By the CPC, by the CBC, by others.

 

Comments (110)

…but I’d guess that CBC brass were looking for a little bit of insurance against next fiscal’s budget cuts.

And, Hell, if this crap don’t do it, nothing will!

Comments (23)

…and my friend points out a big gap in Harper’s logic:

1. He’s been saying since 2004 he’s a-okay with a minority.  He’s in fact even suggested it can help to hold him in check, remember that?
2. He’s been saying, for years, we can get the job done with a minority.
3. Now he’s saying, over and over, he needs a majority.
4. He’s obviously saying that because he has polling showing people agree that it is a good way to avoid further “unnecessary elections.”
5. So what, then, would happen with a Harper majority?

I endeavour to answer that last question in my Sun column on Sunday.  Needless to say, I don’t see it as a positive development.

Neither does Chretien.  Thus, this:

Ex PM Jean Chretien takes aim at Harper’s plea for a majority government (FedElxn-Chretien)
Source: The Canadian Press
Apr 14, 2011 14:22

---

MONTREAL – Jean Chretien took aim Thursday at Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s plea for a majority government.

Harper has repeatedly urged Canadians to give the Tories most of the seats in the Commons on May 2 to avoid another election.

But when asked about the prospect of a Tory majority, the former Liberal prime minister shot down the need to heed Harper’s request.

“You know, most of the countries in the world don’t have majority governments,” Chretien, who himself won three consecutive majorities, said before addressing a conference on international policy in Montreal.

“Only in Canada, when I was there, we had three. In all humility.”

Looking at his own party, Chretien said the Liberals’ election campaign has been better than most Canadians thought.

“Not bad, better than expected,” Chretien said when asked about the Michael Ignatieff-led Liberal campaign.

“But we knew that the day of the election (call).

“We have good candidates and the mood with the membership that I meet seems to be better.”

Chretien also predicted the leaders’ debates will have little influence because there were no knockout punches.

He said with the televised debates behind the leaders, the “real campaign” now can begin.

 

Comments (89)

• Bonjour! As you know, I was at the final Raptors game of the season last night (we lost, comme toujours, to the Miami Heat), so I wasn’t able to watch the French-language leaders’ debate.  So I invited readers to analyze the debate on their own – but I was surprised how few did.  How come?
• Because the vote is settling in?: In a typically mild-mannered piece, the Globe’s Radwanski opines that the political parties don’t have much time left to sway the vote.  Says Adam:  “Next weekend is when the leaders will have a last chance to make an enduring impression as families and friends gather for the holiday and take in the hockey playoffs. It’s then, says pollster Nik Nanos, that the election will be discussed. Impressions will be exchanged, then cemented.” Historically, Harper’s core vote has never been that big.  But over the past few elections, he’s incrementally grown it – and, now, he’s openly appealing for a majority.  To stop that – and because they rashly were scared off of cooperation with the NDP by Harper’s propaganda machine – Ignatieff needs to unleash a massive and massively creative ad wave in the remaining days, one aimed at (a) getting lazy Lib voters off the couch, and (b) aimed at getting the support of worried Dipper voters who know that a vote for Jack is a vote for Stephen (because it is).
• Because anglos don’t pay enough attention to doings in Quebec?: When they should.  As I told my friend Charles Adler yesterday, the Quebec debate affects the outcome of the national result.  In the past three elections, Canada has been without a majority government because the Bloc takes so many seats in la belle province. Quebec matters to the national outcome more than any other province.
• Because the result seems pre-ordained?: Hebert, who knows more about Quebec than anyone, is fatalistic about the rest of the race: “To close the prohibitive gap between his party and the front-running Conservatives, Ignatieff needed the debates to recast the campaign in his favour.  There is little evidence that happened.  While Ignatieff did rise to the occasion of his first-ever appearances on the leaders podium, his opposition rivals also proved to be well up to the task of using the debates to consolidate their positions.” She may be right – she often is – but I think Iggy has turned in a solid turn in the debates.  His problem is that Harper has, too.
• Because…beats me. But Ipsos says that Iggy, among all the federalist leaders, won the French debate: “…after a solid performance in the English-language debate, Stephen Harper stumbles and performs considerably under expectations with only 12% indicating that he won the debate (down 7 points). Both Michael Ignatieff (22%, up 7 points) and Jack Layton (19%, up 3 points) had solid showings, improving on Francophones pre-debate expectations.” Viewers clearly felt Ignatieff did very well.  You can therefore expect to see his standing up-tick in the coming days.
• …and what are overall the standings, by the by? Your daily poll crack, Nanos, pegs the gap at eight, not the saturnalian 21-point claim we saw yesterday.  Says Nanos:  Cons 38, Libs 31, NDP 18. There’s still some time left – despite what some pundits say – for some smart advertising to affect the outcome.
• Pic of the day: Oh my Lord, this one – from last night – cries out for a caption!

Comments (61)

…I won’t be watching it!  I’m going to be at the Raptors season-ender with the Heat, and the seats are worth a small fortune.  I don’t plan to give them away.

So, to the extent I can (Rogers totally sucks at the ACC) I will be approving your comments about the debate, and what is happening.

Take the controls, faithful wk.com readers!

Comments (35)

One, I will resist the temptation to remind Conservative pals that I’ve been saying their lousy campaign would hurt them.  It clearly has.

Two, an interview I did with my friend Joseph Planta, for your edification.

Three, privatization of health care is not a big winner in Quebec.  I’ll bet this one gets referenced in the French debate.

 

Comments (40)

After watching the debate lasy night, my eldest son (almost 13) wants to join the Young Liberals. Can he? How does he?

Comments (11)

Dubya: “Hey, Val, good thing Cheney didn’t see us wearing jackets favoured by a murderous dictator!”

Val: “Sigh.”

Comments (10)

Here.

Comments (5)

• My impressions? Well, I provided more than you could ever possibly use, last night, with a kabillion web postings.  Here’s a recap of my take.
• Overall Winner: Harper, because he didn’t mess up, and nobody made him break into a sweat.
• Overall Loser: Nobody. They all acquitted themselves pretty well.  They all had some good moments, and not so many bad ones.
• Epic fail: The broadcast.  The leaders were all older white men, the moderator was an older white man, and every videotaped questioner was white.  Didn’t look like Canada, to me.
• Harper win: He was Robo-PM, and programmed as Hell.  Grating, late-night FM announcer voice.  No passion.  But it worked for the medium.  He looked steady.
• Harper loss: The closest he came to sweating, and fumbling, came on that extraordinary (and still unseen A.G. report). The other leaders should’ve kept going at it.  They didn’t.
• Ignatieff win: His exchange with Harper on what it’s all about – “this isn’t bickering, it’s democracy” – was strong stuff.  The LPC should turn it into a spot, fast.
• Ignatieff loss: Layton pointed out that Iggy and his party outflanked Harper on the right on Afghanistan.  It shored up Layton’s soft vote, and made Libs like me remember a big, big Ignatieff error.
• Layton win: His false allegation about Ignatieff’s voting record went viral, and is now an NDP ad.  It may have been B.S., but Ignatieff should have never sloughed it off.
• Layton loss: He lied on gun control, and gave the false impression on his party’s position. Shame.  His party is split on gun control.
• Duceppe win: He was the quip guy, last night.  Murdered Harper a couple times.
• Duceppe loss: He looked shameful on immigration and reasonable accomodation. Rene Levesque, wherever he is, is shaking his head in sadness.
• That’s me. And what do Canadians think? According to Ipsos, they think Harper and Layton won.  The Layton result surprises me. What do you think?
• Pic of the day: Caption contest!

 

 

Comments (80)