• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2013

Except now, the PM has been accused of being there in the room with Duffy and Wright.  The message has changed so much since day one, a message that the PM has been touting.  From stating teh expenses were in line, to hey he paid up, to we knew nothing of his, to the COS acted alone, to well maybe not, to etc etc.

They've changed their message everytime in a reactionary way.  If Duffy was in fact in the office with the PM and Wright it shows that this was important enough for the PM to be in the loop more than he is letting on.  Never mind who else might have been.
 
George Wallace said:
I agree. 

That is the point I have been trying some to understand.  The PM is aided by his staff in the PMO in the performance of his duties.  At the same time his staff, as part of their "duties" will filter things, perhaps triage things, that come in and at times the boss will not know of them.  The Prime Minister is not "all seeing; all knowing".  He is a very busy man and only human.  For us to expect more is rather largest on our part.


Plus, as others have mentioned, the COS will, intentionally, keep things from the boss, to give him "plausible deniability" because some expedient things don't pass the "smell test." It is very likely that Prime Minister Harper knew nothing at all about the $90,000 cheque; it is highly believable that his COS said, "Prime Minister, I have spoken to Sen Duffy and he will repay his questionable expenses very soon." For whatever reasons, including, as you suggest, being very busy, it is unlikely that the PM would want to know the "why" and "how" of it all ~ not his business.

 
Some predicted this when the Reform merged with the remains of the Progressive Conservatives. I think many people are missing the ability to vote Reform.  Where is Preston Manning saying I told you so?
 
Caution: I am a Conservative partisan and a media skeptic, but even on that basis I think that Terence Corcoran has got it 99% right in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Financial Post:

Financial_Post_logo_2.png

Mike Duffy’s verbal flimflam turned villain into victim in the eyes of the media

Terence Corcoran

24/10/13

What a spectacle this has been: Two veteran media hacks and professional personalities, skilled manipulators of the public mind, suddenly raised to the status of heroic battlers against an evil prime minister. Overnight, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin — admitted expense account padders and alleged prevaricators — are elevated to the biggest prime-time roles of their careers, engulfing the government of Canada in a so-called scandal.

Why did it come to this? When Mike Duffy delivered his post-partum blast at Stephen Harper this week, the last people you would expect to fall for his extravagant accusations would be the media. Throughout his career Mr. Duffy was mostly seen as a partisan lightweight around the Ottawa Press Gallery. Every now and then he’d score a coup, but his main claim to fame was not his dogged journalism so much as his oleaginous populism and special charms as a speaker and TV personality.

But suddenly Mr. Duffy, whom few thought credible 24 hours earlier, became the bearer of truth against power, the man who drew a “sordid portrait of the Harper operation” — as Harper hater Lawrence Martin claimed — and demonstrated a “pattern of behaviour” within the Harper entourage wherein “truth has been taken out to the woodshed on more than a few occasions.”

This, after Mr. Duffy delivered an obviously paranoid fantasy filled with unsubstantiated innuendo and distortions. In a 1,700-word speech scripted and crafted for delivery by a man who is a pro at verbal flimflam, Mr. Duffy dropped his bombshells and context, wallowed in self-deception, portrayed himself as victim of a “monstrous political scheme” — and then left the Senate stage never to be seen since.

Why did anyone accept a word of it? This is a man who spent the past six months in almost total silence. Over that time, he granted no interviews, released no documents, lied about the source of his $90,000 expense repayment, and limited his public comments to mumbling while being followed down the roads leading in and out of Parliament by TV cameras and reporters. But when he appeared in the Senate chamber to unwind his 1,700-word toxic screed, he was taken seriously. Not just seriously, he was raised to the status of potential dragon slayer of the reigning media dragon, Conservative Prime Minister Harper.

One would expect the NDP’s pit-bull leader to ride along on Mr. Duffy’s truckload of scatological material, but the media?

I could run through the list of willfully gullible writers, reporters and TV personalities who took Mr. Duffy’s words at face value and without question. CBC’s The National deserves special mention. “Senator Mike Duffy breaks his silence and draws the prime minister closer to the Senate scandal,” said Peter Mansbridge on Tuesday night. “Five months ago … Mike Duffy said he’d give Canadians his whole story. Today he let loose with it. … It was scathing, jaw dropping, a direct shot at the highest office in the country.”

Later in the show, The National’s At Issue panel — minus the National Post’s Andrew Coyne — weighed in with pontifical judgments on how the Duffy missive was “extremely damaging” and was “lighting a fuse on the bomb that went off today.” Chantal Hebert pointed out that “When the prime minister calls you in his office and has a meeting at the top,” that’s a big deal. “It’s very hard now for Stephen Harper to say ‘I didn’t know what was happening.’ “

As we now know — and as was known for some time — nothing was happening. Said meeting between Mr. Duffy, Mr. Harper and Nigel Wright did not take place in the PM’s office, except maybe in Mr. Duffy’s fevered recreation of the facts for his own self-serving purposes. Mr. Duffy had accosted the Prime Minister and Mr. Wright following a Tory caucus meeting, at which time Mr. Harper told Mr. Duffy he had to pay back the $90,000 expenses or face expulsion from caucus.

Instead of paying the money back with his own money, Mr. Duffy somehow wangled a $90,000 personal cheque out of Mr. Wright. Eventually the story on this cheque will come out, but there is no evidence or reason to believe the prime minister knew about it.

What the media should have been doing throughout this week is go after Mr. Duffy and ask him for the proof he says he has to support his allegations. Where’s the letter he says he has from Marjory LeBreton, former government leader in the Senate, telling him it’s OK to claim Ottawa living expenses by declaring his primary residence is in Prince Edward Island? It’s a cottage that a Deloitte audit  — with which Mr. Duffy refused to co-operate — showed Mr. Duffy stayed in almost exclusively during the months of July, August and September?

Ms. Wallin’s personal plea before the Senate also seems to be full of holes, many of which were highlighted in recent comments by Senator LeBreton.

The media and NDP have had a field day with the Duffy/Wallin takeover of a story in which they are the chief villains, not victims.  As time goes on, we may get to this truth, with the prime minister emerging in the public mind as the man of principle, the leader who said the right thing to do was pay back inappropriate expenses.

National Post


I take issue with Mr Corocoran on one point: he says, "Duffy somehow wangled a $90,000 personal cheque out of Mr. Wright. " I don't think he "somehow wrangled" the money from Nigel Wright, I think Nigel Wright, making a colossal error in judgement, offered the money ~ thinking (because he was too preoccupied with the inside the greenbelt world of the PMO) that he was helping the PM by solving in problem when, in reality, he was complicating a problem and making a small scandal into a crisis. That's not Sen Duffy's fault; the blame lies with Mr. Wright.

But, on the main point, Mr Corcoran is spot on: this is not a crisis and, as scandals go, it is pretty bush league ... remember Alfonso Gagliano and, currently, Joe Fontana? This crisis is, almost entirely, a construct of a parliamentary press gallery and a commentatiat that mirrors the Laurentian consensus, both of which see prime Minister Harper as the devil incarnate.

In the fullness of time there will be formal, sworn statements and it will be clear that:

    1. Sens Brazeau and Duffy, at least, knowingly committed fraud. Sen Wallin might be guilty only of stretching some pretty opaque rules to her advantage;

    2. Nigel Wright may have committed a legal breach by offering money to a legislator in exchange for a service. Mr Wright is guilty of a gross error in judgement;

    3. The Prime Minister did not lie ~ but he was not as forthcoming as he might have been. He was, honestly, in the dark about the $90,000 but he was "guilty" of bullying Sens Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin for partisan political purposes.
 
I agree that there is a significant difference between what the Press present as a "big deal" and what the public believes is a big deal.  I don't think that many in the public now view Mike Duffy as some kind of victim.  The people I've spoken to about the issue certainly haven't changed their opinion of his misdeeds.  That however doesn't mean that what he said isn't damaging to the Prime Minister. 

No pitchforks or torches will be raised as a result of any of this but I think it does reinforce a widely held perception that PM Harper (and "his" government by extension) has too great a focus on the control of information and opinion.  Even to the point of borderline dishonesty.  As long as there is no real credible political alternative to the Conservatives I don't think that they are in much risk of losing power, but as long as this underlying "discomfort" that many Canadians seem to have with the PM remains I think they will continue to struggle in minority territory.  They run a significant risk though.  One "real" scandal, or a bunch more little issues like this combined with at least a palatable alternative leader for the Liberals could cause enough Canadians to turn their back on them to lose an election.
 
GR66 said:
..... at least a palatable alternative leader for the Liberals ......
Where I currently live, Justin Trudeau is viewed as the second coming (there could be some ugly squabbles around Easter).  The alternative isn't remotely the Conservatives, but the NDP, and many of them are still mourning Saint Jack Layton -- who becomes that much more awesome with each memory -- to organize anything effective, politically.

I think the Liberals believe they have a leader who is much more than merely palatable.   
 
Lightguns said:
Duffy and Wallin have long been in the Prima Dona class of Canadians, they are having a hard time grasping that they did anything wrong.  That is really whats going on here.

Somewhere, David Dingwall is chuckling to himself and enjoying his entitlement to his entitlements. 

 
And now Brazeau is claiming he was offered a backroom deal...
 
So we have two completely corrupt parties and a third option which is a bunch of ideologues with no experience whatsoever who will quickly become corrupted once they are elected.

I'm not even seeing a least worst option.
 
Nemo888 said:
I'm not even seeing a least worst option.
If this tempest in a teapot is so traumatizing as to make Canadian politics impossible for you, I suggest you broaden your horizons and check out the rest of the planet.  ::)


Once again, I thank the site owner for the ignore function.
 
Let me say this:

If what I am hearing is correct, the way Senator Wallin was investigated was by using new claim rules and backdating them

So how many of you here would say that's fair? It's like saying you broke the rules of today three years ago and now we are charging you for it.

Think that would fly in the AJAGs office?
 
The beauty of this for the PPG and other Harper Haterstm is this is another faux scandal that can be endlessly spun to the detriment of the CPC.

Oddly, the same hound dogs are silent about the case of Liberal Senator Harb, and I strongly suspect that as the net is cast more widely, other Senators of all persuasions will find themselves being caught as well. Much like the Robocalls story, I also predict a sudden pall of silence when the first new Liberal Senator is implicated in questionable or at least questionable looking expenses.

And people wonder why the PM, PMO and Party are so concerned about controlling the messaging?
 
Thucydides said:
The beauty of this for the PPG and other Harper Haterstm is this is another faux scandal that can be endlessly spun to the detriment of the CPC.

Oddly, the same hound dogs are silent about the case of Liberal Senator Harb, and I strongly suspect that as the net is cast more widely, other Senators of all persuasions will find themselves being caught as well. Much like the Robocalls story, I also predict a sudden pall of silence when the first new Liberal Senator is implicated in questionable or at least questionable looking expenses.

And people wonder why the PM, PMO and Party are so concerned about controlling the messaging?

The silence in the media these days over Liberal Senator Harb, and even Justin Trudeau's lecture payments, is a sure sign of media partisanship. 
 
While this is an American example, we all see the same thing here in Canada with the PPG and other Harper Hatertm media supporters of the Laurentian Consensus, and I suspect that Europe may have similar issues in how their institutional press reports things. The UK tabloid media is an entirely different animal...

The interesting take away from this is the people who are going to follow this advice will be reverting to the sort of underground flow of information that was common during the Soviet era (and is expressed in many eras of repression). Look for Samizdat, subversive messages hidden in songs, sayings or other "open" media (with meanings decoded by people in the know, much like the American Underground Railroad for freeing black slaves in the pre civil war era), and other channels that the legacy media and government do not control:

https://www.billwhittle.com/commentary/bamboo-spears

BAMBOO SPEARS

I suppose it’s still possible that some people haven’t heard this about me, because God knows I repeat it often enough: when I was five years old, I saw the USAF Thunderbirds flying F-100 Super Sabers at Kindley Air Force Base in Bermuda; from that moment I spent twelve years preparing to enter the United States Air Force Academy, and have been in love with flying ever since.

During the years between that first overhead flash of silver, red, white and blue, and this exact moment – right now – I have wanted to be a fighter pilot. I studied military history, weapon systems, strategy and tactics, and learned by heart every piece of hardware in our inventory, and the Soviet inventory, as well.

Not long ago, the man who made my career possible – Glenn Reynolds, aka The Blogfather, aka Instapundit, wrote a simple, throw-away sentence that went through my forehead like a diamond bullet. It fundamentally changed the way I see things, and like a diamond bullet through the forehead – it hurt.

Glenn was talking about the pummeling the GOP was taking in the polls during and after the latest “government shutdown,” which was in fact caused by President Obama but which was reported in the press – universally – as being the fault of the Republicans. He wrote:

The GOP has to deal with the problem posed by a hostile media. It’s like trying to mount an invasion when the enemy has air superiority.

Up until that instant, I thought I had a good sense of the advantage that the Democrats, and their control-freak ilk, had over those of us that value responsibility, freedom and being left alone. I have done innumerable commentaries on press bias; I’ve even done some math with Electoral College voting showing what a difference a 15 percentage point spin does to Presidential campaigns.

So I thought I had a handle on the political consequences of this kind of media headwind. But I don’t naturally think like a politician. I think like a fighter pilot.

There are scores, if not hundreds of variables at play on the modern battlefield – but there is only one essential element: only one. You can still lose if you have it, but without it you simply do not have a chance. And that one variable is not just air superiority – the ability to fight and win in the skies over the battlespace – but air supremacy: you must own the skies.

With air supremacy comes reconnaissance. With air supremacy comes air strikes. With air supremacy comes the ability to locate, and destroy, enemy armor, ships, convoys and troop concentrations. Air supremacy is a force multiplier: AWACS command and control aircraft can vector inbound strike packages fluidly and flexibly, hitting targets of opportunity as they appear.

Without air supremacy, you formerly could not move in daylight. Now, you cannot move at all. Without air supremacy your troop concentrations and movements are known to the enemy, while you remain blind to theirs. Without air supremacy you cannot protect assets. Any concentration of forces large enough to do serious damage is detected, located, identified and destroyed before it can get into effective range.

This is true over land and it is true at sea. If you are fighting a conventional war and you do not own the skies, you are going to lose.

And so with that one sentence, Glenn Reynolds made clear to me not only how serious our problem is: he also made it clear to me what the solution has to be, and it is a solution that, frankly, makes me a little ill.

I meant what I said. The logic and evidence for it is overwhelming: If you are fighting a conventional war and you do not own the skies, you are going to lose.

So: logically, if this statement is true, and you do not like the conclusion, then you have to change one of the operators. And that looks like this:

If you do not have air supremacy, and you don’t want to lose, then you must not fight a conventional war.

I have some thoughts on how to do that: how to fight a non-conventional political war using guerrilla messaging techniques. That’s going to be the subject of my next Firewall, which I’ll shoot next week.

Until then, let me show you how this would work on a target working against the Liberal messaging machine and their unchallengeable (for now) air supremacy.

The tagline for my website has been SMART CONSERVATIVE THINKING. I chose it because it was bold, it was defiant, and it was assertive: it was running to the top of a hill and planting a flag for people to rally around.

Now, with my new vision, I see that it is all those things: a conventional unit on an open plain. That flag, and that hill, will be turned into searing napalm the instant is starts to become enough of a threat to warrant an airstrike.

That message – that smart, common-sense, responsible conservative message – cannot change. That message is the entire reason we are fighting this battle in the first place. But I have to stop thinking like an American – which is not only hard but extremely distasteful for me – and start thinking like the Viet Cong. I have to start thinking the way the Left itself started thinking forty years ago. They didn’t come out and say GET YOUR COMMUNISM HERE. They turned students into professors who then turned out more students. That’s how we have to think: the Long March.

Dammit.

So, the first person who should listen to this idea of mine, is me. Rather than a banner which alienates anyone who is not already a conservative before they hear so much as a syllable of reason, I will use one that recruits, rather than repels those people who know the system is broken and don’t like where this country is headed. I can’t control the fact that the word conservative has been smeared; but it has. There’s a laser target designator on that word, and it lights it up to a constellation of attack aircraft flying high overhead. So we will fade into the undergrowth, and deploy some serious camouflage. 

Starting on Monday, October 28th, 2013 the tag line at BillWhittle.com will no longer be SMART CONSERVATIVE THINKING. Starting on Monday we will become THE COMMON-SENSE RESISTANCE.

And it was only after coming to grips that what we have in our hands are not F-22’s but rather bamboo spears, that I realized there was a person in history who was faced with a similar problem, and it wasn’t Mao, and it wasn’t Ho Chi Minh.
 
>Where I currently live, Justin Trudeau is viewed as the second coming

In other areas, it's more along the lines of premature ejaculation.
 
I find it very easy to not take sides with this whole Senate thing. We can bicker about Liberal senators and Conservative senators all we want, but the fact is, our system is a nice warm petri dish to culture corruption/greed/fraud. If an appointed representative is a fat kid on a diet, the rules surrounding accountability (or lack thereof) and our willingness to just let them "pay it back" without any real repercussions other than *maybe* their own personal reputation (which I don't think means much to them once they are appointed to a position that they basically can't lose), is a greasy sausage, the kind that magically has cheese in the middle to make them extra delicious and extra fattening.

The level of indifference I feel with the whole thing is starting to resemble apathy, and as someone who gets riled up over these things rather easily, that's kind of scary.

We literally need to clean house and start from new, but I fear there is no change that resembles anything "substantial" in the near future... no matter who has whatever seats in the House of Commons.
 
milnews.ca said:


  • I'm glad that that is finally out in the open, but how long has that story been quietly ignored?

    As a matter of fact, looking at these stories, it seems there is a real difference between Senator Harb and Senators Duffy and Wallin: Duffy and Wallin *may* have misinterpreted the rules but there seems to be mens rea in Harb's case. The story around Senator Brazeau  is much murkier, and there may be mens rea in how the rules and regulations were interpreted there.

    Really, a full Court of Inquiry should be called (if not a real Court) so due process can be applied to all these cases and the truth allowed to emerge.
 
Thucydides said:
Really, a full Court of Inquiry should be called (if not a real Court) so due process can be applied to all these cases and the truth allowed to emerge.
:nod:

Meanwhile, more from the Duff-ster - highlights mine....
A Canadian senator at the centre of a spending scandal on Monday accused the prime minister's office and his own Tory party of scripting his lines in an alleged coverup.

Senator Mike Duffy and two others appointed to the upper chamber by Prime Minister Stephen Harper are being targeted for suspension over what an audit revealed were "troubling" expense claims.

Duffy is also being investigated by federal police for having accepted a Can$90,000 check from Harper's chief of staff to help the lawmaker repay funds he had claimed as Senate expenses.

Duffy now alleges a "set-up planned by the Senate leadership under the direction of the PMO (prime minister's office) and designed to destroy my credibility with Canadians if and when I ever went public with the real story behind the $90,000."

He said in his four and a half years as a senator, officials had found that he'd overcharged the Senate for a total of $437.35, which he repaid.

But public outcry grew louder over the Ottawa resident's separate claim of a housing allowance -- typically available to senators who live outside Ottawa in order to maintain a second home in the capital for work.

Duffy said the prime minister's office hatched a "nefarious scheme" to repay those funds for him.

Harper's right-hand man Nigel Wright resigned in May when it was revealed that he actually paid back the Can$90,000 on Duffy's behalf.

Duffy revealed now that Wright also "arranged to have my legal fees paid... there were two cheques, at least two cheques."

"The PMO -- the PMO, listen to this -- had the Conservative Party's lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, pay my legal fees. He paid for my lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, a cheque for Can$13,560. That's right Senators, not one payment, but two."

"Why would he do that? He would never do it if he believed my expense claims were improper. He did this... because it was all part of his strategy, negotiated by his lawyers and the Conservative party's lawyers to make a political situation embarrassing to his base go away.

"He took their money, I suspect, I can't prove it yet, I suspect he took their money, the base's money to pay off a lawyer to make this all go away. The cheques tell who is telling the truth, and who is not."
....
Agence France-Presse, 28 Oct 13

....

Duffy said he had been coached by the prime minister's office to say he had taken out a loan to pay back the C$90,000. In fact, Harper's chief of staff, Nigel Wright, wrote him a check to cover the amount.

Referring to the aftermath of the February meeting, Duffy said: "So I'm back home ... after the Prime Minister's decided we're going to do this nefarious scheme".

Harper's chief spokesman said he would respond after reviewing what Duffy had said. The government has said Wright acted alone, and Harper was not aware of the C$90,000 payment.

Wright resigned in May after news first broke about the check, a payment that caused anger among Conservative legislators and supporters.

"This monstrous fraud was the PMO's creation from start to finish," Duffy told the Senate, adding that Harper and Wright knew he had followed the rules on expenses. Harper says he told Duffy to repay the money because it had been wrongly claimed.

"The millions of Canadians who voted for Prime Minister Harper and the thousands of Tories gathering in Calgary this week would be shocked to see how some of these people, how some of these Tories, operate. They have no moral compass," he said.

In another explosive accusation on Monday, Duffy said a Conservative Party lawyer had arranged to pay his legal expenses, which he said was evidence that Harper's office backed the deal. Duffy submitted to the Senate a copy of the check for C$13,560.

"That's right, senators. Not one payment but two. Contrary to the prime minister's assertion ... that he ordered repayment because Senate expense rules were in his words beyond a shadow of a doubt broken, he had my legal bills fully paid," Duffy told the Senate ....
Reuters, 28 Oct 13

That channel ain't changin' just yet ....
 
No, the channel isn't changing but the story and plot line sure is...

How much to do you want to bet that Duffy is saving something for the day of the CPC convention to try an upstage the PM's speech?
 
Back
Top