Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

The Blogging Tory canaries in the Cons/Mulroney noxious gases mineshafts perhaps

It’s an observation of some out there who observe this in the media and the blogging world that you can tell how serious an allegation against a party or a government is by how vehement the proxies for that particular group deny the allegations, or by how much smearing and obfuscation they attempt to fling at the other side in an attempt to distract from the issue troubling their favourite political side.

If that is the case, then the initial reactions from the Blogging Tories and some online conservative commenter trolls to the Mulroney-Schreiber Airbus controversy and how it seems to have entangled Harper and the Cons are very telling, and several examples are noted in the links provided. Is this a big deal as it concerns the Harper government? I don’t know – too early to say. The proxies obviously think so.

Right now, the mere fact Mulroney’s name is some how connected to Harper, however tenuous that might or might not be, and the fact that Harper had 3 flip-flops in the past week on what type of inquiry to hold – from a cocky dismissal of it with a vague warning about investigating past Liberal regimes last week, to an independent person to see whether we need an inquiry, to now a full blown inquiry – gives the impression to the public something fishy has been going on.
It has led at least 2 pollsters to either conclude that it’s causing Con poll numbers to drop, or that it has potential to do so.

One thing for sure is that it is going to be a definite distraction for the Cons. That “clean government” proclamation they made about themselves may be coming back to haunt them, moreso then any other declaration or statement they have made that has been found wanting.

18 comments to The Blogging Tory canaries in the Cons/Mulroney noxious gases mineshafts perhaps

  • Walkswithcoffee

    "On a related issue, does walkswithcoffee make a special effort to be as obnoxious as he comes across, or does it come naturally?"

    It is a hangover from when I was asked to start the BTs… it takes time to detox.

  • "That “clean government” proclamation they made about themselves may be coming back to haunt them, moreso then any other declaration or statement they have made that has been found wanting."

    Why, because Karlheinz Schreiber wrote a letter to Harper? Ooooh, what a betrayal of the government’s ethical standards.

    I find it more than a little telling that even you can’t get terribly excited about this little exercise in Liberal mud-slinging. The party appears to be shooting out countless suggestions and implications, all without a shred of evidence that the current government did anything wrong, all in the hope that a tiny bit of mud might stick (Hey, the "In and Out" thing didn’t work, might as well try something new). All the Liberals are currently doing is breeding cynicism about politicians in general.

    On a related issue, does walkswithcoffee make a special effort to be as obnoxious as he comes across, or does it come naturally?

  • Walkswithcoffee

    Scott, it is not that I don’t like you or what you write (I don’t take this stuff that emotionally). Rather, I think you are wrong in your observations and misguided in your focus.

    For example:

    A. What matters is not what their propaganda machine is saying, it is what they are not saying that is the real story. You have it backwards.

    B. I believe you are misguided and have been coned into supporting their story line by echoing it. It’s their story so let them tell it… but don’t bark for them.

    As for reading your stuff, I mostly don’t as it is typically barking the BT-CPoC propaganda machine story for them. Secondary repeats of someone elses propaganda does not usually get my attention, but from to time I read you to see if you have learned  any lesson from the BT scam yet… apparently not, so as you were.

    l8r

    Walks

  • It’s interesting that you think that my lashing out speaks to Conservative worry.  I am not connected with the party like I used to be, I haven’t been for a long time.  My interest in politics has been restricted to the armchair at best of late.  I’m not trying to defend the Conservatives.  If you can point to a time on my blog, or in my podcasts, that I’ve ever been an apologist or pundit for the Conservative party, and that my views have ever been anything other than my own, I’d like to see it.If you want me to criticize the Conservative Party, that I will have no trouble doing. My fascination is with the Liberal party, in particular, for it’s complete lack of ethics, introspection, and any firm value other than to be in power.

  • By the way, Mike (Brock), Mike of Rational Reasons is an ex-NDP’er/now libertarian anarchist – not all who are thinking the Cons look bad in this are of the Liberal Party, nor is it just all Liberals and Con sympathizers like yourself who post comments here.

    So, I advise you to lose the line of attack that the only one accusing the Cons of wrongdoing in this are Liberals only – that just makes your lot look even more desperate then it already does.

  • Well Walks, if you don’t like what I have to say, then you don’t have to read here, or comment here either. Obviously, I don’t share your Point of View. I made note of what was going on over there, and made some observations on what this might do to affect the Cons. If you’re upset I’m not writing what you want me to, you’re always free to go elsewhere, or to write in a blog of your own what you think should be written.

  • Walkswithcoffee

    "I’m merely observing what the other side in blogging land is doing. That’s my take on things. There are others who have different takes, such as Impolitical who you linked to. "

    You have been the BT sucker for a long time… it’s time for you to get out of their playground and stop giving their scam airtime. Note how Impolitical does not muck about in their crap. Rather, he focuses on real facts and not artificially created "facts" designed by the BT-CPoC propaganda machince to keep people like you busy saying nothing about what is really going on.

  • Well now, if Mike Brock is over here trying to defend this brouhaha, I now know its being very seriously taken over in Con. land. As for the Mac stuff – sorry Mike… but I’m not concerned about the 5% of people who use Mac’s – get a real computer and things will be fixed 🙂

    Walks, I’m merely observing what the other side in blogging land is doing. That’s my take on things. There are others who have different takes, such as Impolitical who you linked to. 

  • Walkswithcoffee

    Simply put,

    Mulroney is a central part of Harper’s team.

    if Mulroney lied under oath = big problem for Mulroney

    if the government maneveured to supress an investigation of allegations = big problem for Harper

    Even the appearance of providing cover for Mulroney is a credibilty problem for Harper.

    BTW, what was Harper’s answer to the BQs question on Schreiber donation to Harper’s leadership campaign?

  • Dan

    "The larger issue is the PM denying knowledge of ‘the letters’, from Karl.
    The denial is tantamount to impeding justice and most assuredly the Justice Minister is part of it all."

    In other words, what did the PM know and when did he know it?

  • And why don’t line breaks work for me on this blog?  Your blog is not Mac compatible.  Because no, I do not write long, run-on paragraphs.

  • [quote]who has not faced trial yet so is not, technically, a criminal[/quote]

    Indeed, and Stephen Harper has also not been proven to have actively engaged in a cover-up.   The PMO ignoring Shreiber’s allegations Mulroney does not constitute a cover-up by the prime minister.  The attempt by the Liberal’s to turn this into an Adscam quid pro quo is going to backfire.  

    At worst, Stephen Harper ignored Shreiber and didn’t care what he had to say until Harper’s name was mentioned in an affidavit. The Liberal’s seem so excited that this is their chance to leave Harper walking away with his tail between his legs, and prove that Stephen Harper is corrupt.  There is no corruption here.  Stephen Harper’s indifference to the allegations of Shreiber could be criticized and argued bad judgement, but on the other hand there is no evidence Harper knew about this, other than his office having been sent a letter by Shreiber 7 months ago.

    Unfortunately, the sending of mail does not confirm it’s receipt and the consumption of it’s contents. When this RCMP criminal probe goes forward (if it does) or the inquiry goes forward (they should not both proceed concurrently, as that would be a violation of Mulroney’s charter rights), this is likely going to blow up in Stephane Dion’s face when they can prove NOTHING about Stephen Harper’s involvement short of his office having a letter received, and find that Shreiber’s allegations cannot be corroborated.  I won’t put it past you desperate Liberal’s to try a 2004 redux, where you use fear tactics about an "alleged scandal that may or may not exist" as the reason for quick return to power for the Liberal Party.  But I don’t think it’s going to fly.

  • "Clean Government = "Mission Accomplished"

  • Walkswithcoffee

    Mike Brock, read Impolitical’s timeline of events in the Justice Department. There is evidence of maneuvering to direct events… i.e. implicating forethought and intent within the Harper Government to cover up actions and knowledge.

    It is the cover-up that getcha.

    Cheers,

    Walks

  • Well Mike that "criminal deportee" (who has not faced trial yet so is not, technically, a criminal)  has been charged with bribing public officials and fraud. So when he admits to essentially bribing a public official (Mulroney while still in office) in Canada, that hardly helps his case, does it? Seems to me that when a criminal charged with bribery says he gave money to public official, it isn’t a defense of that public official to claim the the accuser is a criminal. It actually bolsters the case.

    But feel free to keep that "how can we believe a criminal" meme going. I’m sure it will help.

  • [quote comment=”10273″]The larger issue is the PM denying knowledge of “the letters”, from Karl. The denial is tantamount to impeding justice and most assuredly the Justice Minister is part of it all. [/quote]

    To say that Stephen Harper denying knowledge of the letter is obstruction of justice, is to imply that Stephan Harper is lying about not being aware of them.  How do you know he’s lying? I think the bigger issue here, is we are re-opening an investigation in Brian Mulroney for the third time, after two previous probes uncovered no evidence of wrong-doing.  

    The Chretien government was forced to settle out of court as the result of a lawsuit brought by Mulroney, for defamation of character.  Now, a felon, who is fighting tooth and nail not be deported back to Germany to face justice for fraud, criminal tax evation, etc. suddenly has more credibility to the Liberal party that a former Prime Minister.  Stephen Harper MUST be lying, and the criminal deportee MUST be telling the truth.  I guess like-minded people like to stick together.

  • Walkswithcoffee

    Turn your focus away from the Flannagan scam known as the BTs. You are being reactive and irrelevant focusing on the BTs.

    In contrast, Impolitical is focused on what Harper’s team is actually doing (not their propaganda machine). Impolitical is being relivant. Follow Impolitical, learn from him.

  • foottothefire

    The larger issue is the PM denying knowledge of "the letters", from Karl.
    The denial is tantamount to impeding justice and most assuredly the Justice Minister is part of it all.
    Steve should be impeached….in the USA; the country he loves so well. 

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.