Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:

Archives

New Cons. talking point: Cadman was delusional from his drug medication.

These folks are really getting desperate to find some way to refute the story over the million dollar insurance offer from the Cons, to Chuck Cadman so as to vote for them; the same one that 3 different members of his family were told individually by Chuck did happen. On the other hand, when you have talking heads like Mike Duffy willing to regurgitate it when questioning Chuck’s daughter, I guess the theme is to throw whatever talking point and mud out there that you can and hope that something sticks sticks (not that Duffy is very good at being sensitive to matters like this; remember when he went and upset Margaret Trudeau reminding her it was her dead son’s birthday while she was accepting condolences over Pierre Trudeau’s death?).

As Kady O’Malley says at her site, there aren’t any multiple talking points from the Conservatives, just a different one each day, as “they only seem to be able to come up with one at a time, and can barely keep up with the debunkings even at that rate.”

I think this comment at Dave’s site from The Jurist, owner of the excellent blog Accidental Deliberations, says it a lot better then I could:

It’s particularly amusing to see this particular talking point brought out immediately after the Cons’ previous argument that (their spin on) a couple of out-of-context quotes from Cadman’s media interviews should be taken as gospel so as to end the matter. So as far as the Cons are concerned, it’s beyond the pale to even slightly question anything from the dearly departed to the extent it can be taken to support their cause, but entirely acceptable to throw out wild speculation about drug-induced irrationality when the shoe is on the other foot.

10 comments to New Cons. talking point: Cadman was delusional from his drug medication.

  • janfromthebruce

    thanks Frank, I appreciate that. I do remember him asking voters whether he should support the budget. That said, I am sure the little private meeting and being asked to ‘vote against his constituents wishes’ with a bribe would have perhaps weighed on his mind and ‘tipped the balance in his 1/2 hour of decision making before his vote.
    Remember, he still was weighing his decision even after his constituents had weighted in there.Thus he remained true to himself and his constituents, win-win all around.

  • In reply to jamfromthebruce (and others asking similar questions).

    I live out here in BC and recall the vociferous local debate about which way Cadman should vote. In the end, he (Cadman) remained true to his principals and chose to vote as his constituents wished him to vote.

    It’s being spun all kinds of way right now, but that is <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/19/second-confidence050519.html">how it was back in May of 2005</a>.

    Cadman had said that he wanted to hear from his constituents before making a final decision on how he would vote. But after a recent poll of 600 eligible voters in his riding of Surrey North indicated two-thirds of respondents didn’t want an election, he had hinted that he would support the budget.
    Cadman said he made up his mind to support the government only a half hour before the vote.

    "I started in 1997 as a Reformer and that was one of the basic tenets: put your constituents before anything else," he said.

    Scott can affim that I am neither a Conservative, a Reformer, nor even a Liberal, but if I had lived in Suurry-North I would have voted for Chuck Cadman.

  • I had someone drop by my blog and say the exact same talking point. Cadman was delusional on drugs. HA! Sure doesn’t take long for the trolls to parrot the talking points. It’s scary in it’s efficiency.

  • saskboy1

    I see more people are using the "Cadscam" label I probably thought of at the same time many others did. It’s unfortunate it will take something that rolls off the tongue for most Canadians to latch onto the fact that this bribery scandal is the last straw for this corrupt government.

  • janfromthebruce

    It was his last good deed, that vote. In fact, I would reckon that he voted that way because the Harper Cons tried to bribe him, so in fact, it backfired on them.
    It thus brings a whole different meaning to integrity, Con style.

  • Cara

    I didn’t think it could get anymore disgusting but it has.Charles Adler’s column asks whether Cadman was angry at the Tories because they wouldn’t meet his high price. And when they wouldn’t, he went to his family with a made up tale about how the Tories tried to bribe him.
    In the name of human decency! Is it such a stretch of the imagination to think that Cadman kept quiet in public because he was weeks away from dying and didn’t have the energy or inclination to get embroiled in the inevitable turmoil? For crying out loud! The man was dead in a matter of weeks and wanted to spent it in peace and with his family. What would most people have done in his situation?

  • Holy crap, these people are disgusting.

    Dear Conservative Party of Canada:

    Stay Down.

  • In Canadian law, you can’t libel a dead person.

    See?! That makes it moral too! 😉

  • slg

    Oh really, dillusional from drugs? If that were the case, he’d be too dillusional to offer a door back into the Conservative party, too dillusional to make a rational vote in the House and too dillusional to travel all way to Ottawa for that vote.

    I’m disgusted, I really am.

  • catherine

    Since they can’t rely simply on the defense that the Cadman family are liars, they need to discredit the message, while tiptoeing around what that implies about the messenger.

    I expect we will hear more from Dora Cadman at some point.

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