Paul Martin said a number of PMO people needed to know the details of the income trust taxation decision ahead of time.

I wondered just who really needed to know, since it seems like too many people knew.

On the question of who needed to know, a former PMO staffer got in touch with me with some insights:

Paul Martin is telling the truth, somewhat.

PMO coordinates two things: communications and policy. So Scott Reid would have needed to know, so that Goodale's press conference was not taking place at the same time as some other announcement. And the policy shop would have needed to know, so it did not contradict some overall government priority, etc. So those things are true.

But what he does not address is this: this was a matter of tax policy that had huge market implications. Those things are treated with budget-level secrecy. And, here, we know that was not the case -- junior staff were running around spouting off well before the press conference. Hell, John McKay went on TV to say what the tax policy was (and got it wrong)! It was madness.

We have the solid example from CTV of the call to CARP from Ralph Goodale's office that happened before the announcement.

Even if the leak was inadvertant, the whole thing was handled in a haphazard way. Which begs the question why should the Liberals be trusted with levers of government.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:04 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

When information is classified as "need to know", it means that you will be told the information if you require the information to do your job.

I used to work on military systems, and "need to know" had a very straightforward definition. Can you do your job without knowing that information? If the answer is "yes", you don't need to know.

I knew stuff my managers didn't know. I needed to know in order to write the software. They didn't need to know because they cared about schedules and all they needed to do their job was a progress report from me. It all made sense to us.

Paul Martin invoked that phrase when he explained why he was told of the decision not to tax income trusts well ahead of the announcement:

"I knew and I'm one of them. The fact is, that the people who would be on a need-to-know basis would have that information," said Martin.

I would be interested to know who in the PMO would need to know this piece of tax policy ahead of time, and why exactly? What part of their job could they not perform without having that knowledge well ahead of time?

Heck, why would Paul Martin need to know? I can't think of a reason, actually.

Maybe a speechwriter would need a heads up to help prepare a speech. But if you were serious about compartmentalizing the information to avoid these sorts of problems, you would simply have your speechwriter prepare two speeches -- one to explain why income trusts needed to be taxed, and one to announce that they would not.

The concept of "need to know" is really quite simple. What would you have done differently today had you known about the decision not to tax income trusts versus what you normally would have done?

If the only thing you can think of if that you would not have placed one or more phone calls to some friends of yours on Bay Street, then you really didn't need to know.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:05 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Need to know == In the Loop == A term used to describe the compartmentalization of sensitive information. In PaulM's Leak-of-Trust case, I'd guess that Tim "Comfy Fur" Murphy, Scott "Beer-and-Popcorn" Reid, and David "Polls-R-Us" Herle would be in the loop. Warren Kinsella decidedly would not be, although he did lobby Finance (on behalf of the Aspers) to change the income trust decision.

Posted by: cb at December 30, 2005 09:53 PM (8Qug8)

2 Here is something interesting to know.... David Akin @ CTV news blog has some a interesting interview with exRCMP commisioner Norman Inkster It's clear something was up in order to have a investigation from the RCMP..

Posted by: Tric at December 30, 2005 10:21 PM (Uagor)

3 Clearly we voters do not need to know.

Posted by: john at December 30, 2005 10:32 PM (O+BVi)

4 Not to mention he looks like he told a big fat lie when he said it, check out my blog!

Posted by: Derek at December 30, 2005 10:48 PM (yz8rU)

5 Well, it makes for good blogging, but the PMO would need to know. In both capacities. As the real PMO, it's a decision that decides gov't policy. As the Liberal Brain-Trust (tm), it's a decision that is political. I don't know if that's pro-Liberal or not. Cheers, lance

Posted by: Lance at December 30, 2005 10:57 PM (DjQJo)

6 "Need to know" also includes the communications people in each office, including the guy from Goodale's office who made the phone call to the "old, confused" fellow whose organization changed their story on when they heard the details about the announcement.

Posted by: Patrick at December 31, 2005 02:08 AM (u0igE)

7 Need to know....hmmmmmmm....I'm sure that would include those in the PMs office responsible for spreading Liberal largesse.

Posted by: Paul at December 31, 2005 09:28 AM (nlevv)

8 Was John MCkay one of those in the "Need to Know" group? He seemed to "know" something different when he appeared on Newmans show with Solberg on Nov 23 in the afternoon.

Posted by: maggie menzies at December 31, 2005 12:21 PM (OEptf)

9 The MSM of course misses the obvious, Goodale met with some members of the Investment Dealers Association the day before he announced his decision concerning income trusts. Goodale refuses to name specifically who these people from the IDA are. It's no bloody mystery as to who told what, but to whom he told.

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 03:56 PM (gedLv)

10 That's my post above.

Posted by: Bruce Randall at January 01, 2006 04:00 PM (gedLv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Now how hard is it to say, "No, I didn't do it"?

For Paul Martin, apparently he'll pull a muscle than answer with a simple "No".

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:41 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

The Conservative Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on the effect on the Liberal Party:

>>>Income Trust Scandal Rocks Liberals<<<

The NDP website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on what the NDP sees as Ralph Goodale's imminent resignation:

>>>When will he step aside? Ralph watch: 2 days<<<

The Liberal Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on Ralph Goodale's innate honesty:

>>> <*cough* *cough*><<<

Take two!

The Liberal Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on the lack of solid evidence:

>>> <*cough* *cough*><<<

Take three!

The Liberal Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on the way the opposition parties have blown this out of proportion:

>>> <*cough* *cough*><<<

OK, the Liberal Party website has remain completely unchanged. Frozen in time from December 24. Even Scott Feschuk's blog has not been updated in days.

Why does this matter? The party website is a means to get a message out without the selective filtering of the main stream media. On any major issue, and the Income Trust Scandal certainly counts, the party has to explain to its supporters (and to the curious visitor) their side of the story.

So what can we make of the fact that the Liberals are entirely silent via the website?

One possible reason is that the Liberals are keeping to the promise not to campaign through the Christmas break, and that includes updating the website. I don't buy it. First, Paul Martin has been electioneering in Montreal. Second, the scandal is just too important, especially to leave the Conservative and NDP attacks unanswered.

Perhaps a faction that believes that ignoring the problem means it will go away in a couple of days. I happen to think that strategy will fail, but besides my opinion, Paul Martin has been telling reporters that he stands by his minister, and Ralph Goodale has been saying there was no leak. If this faction was running the show, Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale would both be saying something along the lines that no comment should be made until the RCMP delivers its findings.

I think this silence reflects the confusion within the Liberal Party itself. At the highest levels, or so it is rumoured, the strategists are at odds about what to do. What to do about Goodale. What to do about the press. What do to about the opposition.

What to do about a campaign that seems to have come apart at the seams.

Until they can decide on a strategy and can craft a message, the Liberals will have no message to deliver. That leaves the field open to the Conservatives and the NDP to frame the debate. In the meantime, I will continue to watch the website. When it updates, it will be the first clue, and perhaps the best clue, to tell us who is running the show now.

In the meantime, the lack of official reaction does not reflect well on the ability of Paul Martin's Liberals to lead in a crisis.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:19 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 4 kb.

Look at the regional breakdown in the SES CPAC nightly polling numbers from December 28 to December 29, the time period over which the Income Trust Scandal blew wide open:

Atlantic Canada: The Liberals drop stay steady at 42, while the Conservatives poll into a tie, going from 37 to 42, picking up support at the expense of the NDP, who went from 17 to 13. Undecided went up from 17 to 19, suggesting a lot of folks are reconsidering their support, which can only be good news for the Conservatives under the circumstances.

Quebec: The BQ maintains a lock at 53, while Liberals jitter at 30 to 31 points support. Frankly, it's hard to imagine the numbers getting any worse for the Liberals in Quebec.

Ontario: The Liberals drop from 46 to 44, while the Conservatives move up from 35 to 37, and the NDP from 14 to 15. Definite motion in the right direction for the Conservatives.

Western Canada: The Liberals tumble from 34 to 29, and the Conservatives continue to pull away, moving from 43 to 47.

And the leadership indicators, which before this week was where the Liberals maintained a constant lead. Not anymore:

Trust: Martin plummets from 25 to 15, Harper moves slightly from 19 to 20, and undecided leaps from 12 to 16, suggesting an opportunity to change minds.

Competence: Martin actually has a bit of good news, moving from 25 to 27, but Harper gains more, from 18 to 21, which is interesting since there is no way to judge Harper's competence as PM.

Vision: Another massive hit for Martin, losing one third of his strength here, going from 30 to 20. Like before, Harper stays essentially unchanged (23 to 24) while undecided jumps from 15 to 21. Another group of people taking a serious second look at their preconceptions.

Leadership Index Score: This is an overall measure, asking the respondent to consider who would be the best PM, and it suggests that Paul Martin has a serious problem. His score crashes from 80 to 62, while Stephen Harper continues to climb slowly but surely, going from 60 to 65.

Harper actually beats Martin when an overall perception of leadership is measured.

The various polls for support seem to have been stuck since the beginning of the campaign. What we haven't noticed is that a combination of a positive issues-oriented Conservative campaign combined with a negative and reactive Liberal campaign marked with gaffes and now a huge scandal have acted on Canadians to thaw attitudes that have been frozen for years.

My understanding is that a thaw, especially a precipitous one, can lead to a flood. Or so I've heard.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:29 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Actually, just about the entire poll shift came in the West, where the poll numbers are still not quite with the vote was last year (Cons +20, SES poll had Cons +1 . My guess is, Harper had actually made quite a bit of progress "down east" for a while, but it was camouflaged by a surprising Liberal spike in BC. If BC is now back to normal, this could be a long month for Martin. And heaven help Martin if this is because it's just dawning on BC voters that this is a federal election rather than a provincial.

Posted by: D.J. McGuire at December 30, 2005 01:27 PM (AXgiz)

2 Hey Angry, The Liberals low water mark is 28% (Turner) The high mark is 41-44%, even Trudeau couldn't get higher than that. So 35% is the midway point,there is alot of bleeding that can happen. Harper needs to keep the boot on their throat this time, without looking angry.

Posted by: Derek at December 30, 2005 01:31 PM (yz8rU)

3 To get these results, the results of the 400 polled last night had to be Liberals 29, Conservatives 38, NDP 14, Bloq 13. There's a problem with the SES numbers for Ontario: They don't add up to 100; they add up to 102. SES screwed up at least one of the numbers, I suspect that of the Greens. Taking only the Conservative and Liberal numbers, and making the assumption they're correct, they would show that of the approximately 130 respondents from Ontario, an equal number answered Conservative as answered Liberal. This is, of course, meaningless because of the small sample size. However, it will become meaningful when tonight's and Monday's results are factored in. If, indeed, the Conservatives are ahead by more than 5 points, it's a whole new ball game. We could even see the Liberals dropping while the NDP gains. Fourth party status anyone?

Posted by: Patrick at December 30, 2005 02:39 PM (u0igE)

4 The trend lines for Ontario show a crossover point about Jan 20th ... great time! Atlantic is even worse. Yeah, Angry, it's the underlying trends that are material. All I can say, thanks for a long campaign because this is all about changing long-rooted perceptions.

Posted by: Erik Sorenson at December 30, 2005 03:00 PM (KmUe2)

5 The Liberals are blowing this campaign BIG-TIME. It's almost unbelievable how badly this is going for them. Regarding what you said above: "Atlantic Canada: The Liberals drop stay steady at 42, while the Conservatives poll into a tie, going from 37 to 42, picking up support at the expense of the NDP, who went from 17 to 13." I wonder if this is quite accurate: "picking up support at the expense of the NDP". This makes it sound as though NDP supporters are switching to Conservative, a prospect I find somewhat unlikely due to their divergent political positions. I realize this may not be quite what you meant, and I'm not trying to split hairs. Rather, a different, perhaps more accurate, take on this has interesting implications: maybe what's actually happening is that Liberal supporters are switching to the Conservatives, while NDP supporters are switching to the Liberals out of simple fear of a Conservative government. If this is indeed what is happening, it is unpleasant for NDP supporters like myself. That NDP supporters would switch to the Libs after an annoucement of a criminal investigation into the Libs seems to indicate cynical political maneuvering by NDP supporters. I sincerely hope this is not the case, but if it is, I have a simple question for these folks: WHY? Why have so little faith in the party that best represents your beliefs that you would switch to a corrupt party? Why allow yourself to be swayed so much by fear? I find the prospect of a Conservative government as worrisome as the next NDPer. But voting for a party that is corrupt, incompetent and devoid of leadership is cynical, demeaning and undemocratic. It's one thing to vote Liberal to keep the Conservatives out when the Liberals have sensible policies, a strong leader and aren't defrauding the nation. But after Adscam, and now THIS??? That's going too far.

Posted by: Ade at December 30, 2005 03:03 PM (4p91Z)

6 Patrick, Agree 100%, SES is a lagging poll. Like batting averages one good game wont change the average much....but a sustained streak will. As for Liberal 4th party status. Yes there is a scenario in which that plays out, a scenario that could become more likely. if there were 2 weeks to go and this happened I would think a good chance, 3 weeks is a long time. Dont count chickens yet. We shall see how the Liberal campaign plays the nasty stuff. If they do it wrong then they are toast. Isnt there another debate? Thats the one people will watch...and what is the format. Martin is good at the one off. It might be Harper playing defence at that point, protecting a lead. But make no mistake most voters will be evaluating hm for vision and prime minister jelly.

Posted by: Stephen at December 30, 2005 03:10 PM (upnxu)

7 Ade, I could never understand the Dippers fear of a Conservative government lead by Harper. A populist Prime Minister over the elietist should be much more comfortable to the Dippers. I mean really what is it, the lower taxes?, resolution of trade disputes that mean securing union jobs?, Giving back to Canadians their own money to spend on daycare or beer and popcorn or what ever the hell they want? The NDP started out as a populist movement just as Reform did, Harper is the only leader that carries the populist flag of this generation. It is 1958 all over again. We can hope

Posted by: Derek at December 30, 2005 03:25 PM (yz8rU)

8 I'm not exactly keen on the way SES collects the "trust", "vision" and "competence" stats: they appear to only allow respondents to give one answer. That is, if a respondent thinks two of the leaders are trustworthy, and less so the others, they have to flip a coin to choose a "most trustworthy" selection. Still, it's nice to see Harper finally come out on top in the composite scoring.

Posted by: Paul O at December 30, 2005 04:36 PM (80rNn)

9 As long as Harper & Co stay to the high road, whatever 'fear & smear' the Fiberals come up with will look old, tired and desperate. One thing I never understood is how the pollsters pick who they call. It can't be totally random. They must have a list of their favorites or something. I'm listed but I've never been called, nor have my circle of conservative friends... or maybe they're like Ottawa under the Fiberals... they don't want to hear what BC has to say.

Posted by: Mac at December 30, 2005 05:36 PM (tjF+R)

10 I never actually believe the National Polls,but take them with a grain of salt.In talking with many folks from different walks,there is a strong distrust and disgust with the Liberals. They will get down and dirty. Harper must keep to his game plan. Keep jabbing,the opening will come.

Posted by: Al. Churchill at December 30, 2005 05:42 PM (lQzYH)

11 NDP to PC shift in Atlantic Canada is not too far fetched. Tories here have been usually "red" Tories anyway. The anti-Grit vote might move in whatever direction it needs to move to get the job done. The Reform/Alliance candidate in one of New Brunswick's ridings in 1997 and 2000 was a very proud and loyal labour union member (CEP). No problem, no sleepless nights. The SES numbers, as a 3-day rolling average, show a dramatic shift - as Patrick has already pointed out. I can't wait to see the next two chapters.

Posted by: Brent at December 30, 2005 05:44 PM (sCWlO)

12 I asked SES whatpercentage of people they phoned actually answered their poll. They told me 20% on a good day. So the polls tell us that 80 % of the people have not even given an answer and of those that do 18% are undecided. The media will never tell anyone this fact because they would lose their readers and viewers. I think it was Dief who defined polls properly the only thing that they are good for is they give dogs something to do.

Posted by: Barrie at December 30, 2005 06:00 PM (rp6r3)

13 Barrie, I don't disagree that the 80% no-response is a problem. However, it's not as much of a problem as you might think. Polling theory is based on the principle that if you get enough people, randomly chosen, to express their opinion on a subject, it will reflect the larger population. The thing that is counterintuitive about it is you need the same number of respondents whether your larger population is 100 thousand, 100 million, or a billion. China can be polled with the same polling size as Edmonton. And the results will be very similar to other polls taken at the same time, 95% of the time. This is achieved by having enough people that the extremes of the poll are unable to influence the overall conclusions. They cancel each other out. For example, in every poll sample, there are people who deliberately give the opposite answer to what they really think. There are people who answer strategically rather than according to their own opinion. And so on. Therefore, as long as you have a sufficiently large sample size, randomly selected, you should have as accurate a poll as you would if everyone answered the phone, and everyone answered truthfully. The problem isn't the 20% response (although that plays havoc with their costs). The problem is with their methodology in ensuring that in that sample size, they haven't skewed the results by, for example, only including people who are home during the day, or who are predominately of one gender, or who are predominately urban or predominately rural or religious or non-religious. When a pollster says they sampled 1200 people, what they usually (but not always) mean is they sampled, say, 1700 people, then eliminated 500 from consideration because they're overrepresented in the sample. If, for example, they have ten people answer the poll from Nunavut, which would normally be represented by a single person in a 1200 person national poll, they have to determine which of the 10 should be included. Every pollster resolves this problem in different ways. And rolling polls, being time sensitive, don't have the time to do it well. They make up for it by being able to show trends rather than conclusive results.

Posted by: Patrick at December 30, 2005 07:31 PM (u0igE)

14 Captains Quarters had a poll at the start of the election, done for a US company by the Polling company Robbins that survayed 14,000 Canadians. Thjat poll showed that the CPC and the crooks were dead even at 32% That is probably the truest poll todate in this election. One would have to assume that the Liberals are in a lot worse shap today.

Posted by: Barrie at December 30, 2005 07:54 PM (rp6r3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Conservatives roar up the polls.

See Bourque for the latest:

So what does this mean? My prediction is that the hard-core will take over the Liberal war room. Voices of moderation, undermined by yet another ethics scandal, will fade into the background, or leave the organization altogether.

The hard-core will argue that if the attack had started already, the Liberals wouldn't be in this pickle. It doesn't make sense, but then there will be no one left to argue with them. Given free rein to win this election at any cost, we can expect things not just to get nasty, which everyone expected, but downright vicious.

Besides the obvious targets, the Conservatives and the NDP (and their friends and family), expect the media to feel the pressure. Behind the scenes probably, with editors getting calls warning them of dire consequences for access after the Liberals win in January if they don't play ball right now.

Bloggers, too, might have to worry. Given that blogging is new, it's hard to say what the Liberals will do. There are some obvious targets, like Warren Kinsella, but the rest of us have no access with which to form a credible threat. Perhaps they are planning punitive legislation to gag bloggers to be introduced after the Liberals win?

But I could be wrong.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:42 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

I wonder if we'll find out that there are two types of traders at the Toronto Stock Exchange.

The first group will demand that TSX CEO Richard Nesbitt resign until such time as the questions surrounding his suspicious purchase of thousands of income trust fund units just before the Goodale announcement are resolved.

The second group will insist that no investigation is necessary, that there's nothing to see here, and we should just carry on with our business as before.

It's the second group we should be looking at.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

More inside dirt at Bourque about the tremors being felt within the highest levels of the Liberal Party election team in the wake of the Income Trust Scandal bombshell:

According to insiders well-placed to understand the nuances within Martin's braintrust, Bourque has also learned that key campaign personnel are at risk of being replaced in an increasingly desperate attempt to maintain control of the public agenda, and more importantly, the key messaging that is driving this election.

Uh-oh. Desperation? Replacements? Need for new messaging?

The message is crafted by the Communications Director, in this case, Scott Reid.

You remember Scott Reid? He got reamed for suggesting on national television that Canadian parents can't be trusted with money to spend on childcare because they were likely to spend it on beer and popcorn.

He hasn't been heard from since.

And now the Income Trust grenade and a need to "maintain control of the...key messaging."

If I was Scott Reid, I'd be worried.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:23 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

In the case of the Income Trust Scandal, the focus has been on Ralph Goodale and his office.

Senior Ottawa Liberals are telling me the focus is misplaced.

First, check out these quotes captured from the CTV newscast tonight at M K Braaten:

• Don Drummond, VP/Chief Economist: CTV said that Drummond told them he first heard about the announcement via email, 4 hours in advance of announcement. Also, stated that Liberal strategists in Ottawa were the source of email. CTV quoted Drummond as saying "Alot of people seemed to know there was an announcement coming and a few people seemed to know what it was."
• Jim Leech, Teachers pension fund - CTV said that Leech received emails at about 2 pm stating that the announcement was guaranteed. CTV Quoted Leech "I got a bunch of emails around 2pm saying for sure Goodale was making an announcement after the close."
• Sandy Mcintyre, Sentry Select Capital: CTV reported he sent the following email: "There is a strong rumor out of Ottwa that Goodale is going to pronounce after the close today his trust solution…hope my sources are right!" Mcintyre said his sources were quoting 'well connected Liberals'.

Note that the source is ill-defined. Just well-connected Liberals.

Not well-connected finance ministry officials.

Just well-connected Liberals.

Recall that Ralph Goodale's original plan was to announce the decision in January. Suddenly the timeline was moved up. By Ralph Goodale?

Mr. Goodale said in September that the government would consult with a variety of industry and stock market players before announcing any policy change. Industry observers immediately began speculating that the government might consider reducing taxes on corporate dividends as a way of levelling the playing field with income trusts.

On Tuesday, Nov. 22, Mr. Goodale indicated that he would provide direction on the income trust issue because of the impending collapse of the government, effectively ending the consultation process. That night, department officials began discussing the possibility of taxing income trust, sources have said.

The next day, Mr. Goodale's office confirmed that he would be making an announcement and just moments before his scheduled news conference, his parliamentary secretary, Toronto MP John McKay, gave a television interview suggesting the government planned to levy a modest tax on income trusts. Shortly after 5 p.m., Mr. Goodale said there would be no tax on income trusts and that dividend tax credits would be increased starting in 2006.

Pat Breton, a spokesman for Mr. Goodale, said yesterday that Finance officials met on the night of Nov. 22 for two or three hours and came up with the plan that became the next day's announcement on income trusts. He also said that the Prime Minister's Office was told after that Nov. 22 meeting — either later that night, or the next day — about the decision. The policy development was “entirely an internal Finance” effort, he added.

However the media is reporting today that the focus is starting to shift (via Bourque):

Aides to the Prime Minister were told about a taxation change for income trusts "some time immediately before" Mr. Goodale made the announcement after markets had closed on Nov. 23, Pat Breton, a spokesman for Mr. Goodale, said yesterday.

While it is not unusual for the PMO to be informed of high-profile policy announcements, this indicates that the list of officials who had advance knowledge of the pending change went beyond the Finance Department and Mr. Goodale's office.

Well, I know some well-connected Liberals as well, and they've let me know what really happened. As reported in the Globe and Mail, Paul Martin's aides are insisting that Paul Martin was told "some time immediately before" November 23.

It's getting closer to the truth, but still not quite there. It has the date wrong. It also has the direction of the decision-making reversed.

The decision to close of the consultations and deliver the good news not to tax income trusts, probably in response to an election campaign that imminent, was made not by Ralph Goodale, who by all accounts is too honest to be making decisions like this based on election calculations, and who intended to stick to his timetable of accepting submissions on tax policy until December 31. It was not an entirely internal effort, as spokesperson Pat Breton insists. The major decisions were being taken outside of the finance department.

The decision was made by Paul Martin himself.

Paul Martin told Ralph Goodale on Friday, November 18 to bring the consultations to a close and to make an announcement on income tax trusts.

Paul Martin and his immediate PMO staff would have known for five days prior to the announcement how the decision was shaping up.

Paul Martin and his staff were dictating the pace of the work, and possibly the decision itself.

Paul Martin and his immediate PMO staff are as likely suspects as the source for the leak as Ralph Goodale and his office.

When Ralph Goodale stresses that Paul Martin knew nothing, you know he's trying a bit too hard to deflect attention from where the attention should be.

When I read about John McKay's flub on November 23, I wonder whether the finance department was really in the loop. It helps explain McKay's confusion if the PMO was more deeply involved in the decision making.

Where you see Paul Martin standing by Ralph Goodale, I see Paul Martin standing behind Ralph Goodale, keeping him up front and centre not out of a commitment to his minister and a firm belief in his basic honesty and his innocence, but in order to have a shield to hide behind.

Paul Martin made the call on Friday, November 18, not Ralph Goodale on November 22...that's the way it happened, or so well-connected Liberals are telling me.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:14 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 989 words, total size 7 kb.

Some Liberals believe they can ride out the scandal caused by the announcement of the RCMP investigating a potential leak from Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office to select traders willing to use inside information to turn a quick profit.

The reason? Christmas:

Liberals believe the fact that the criminal investigation was revealed in the dead zone between Christmas and New Year's Day, when few voters were paying attention, will save their electoral bacon.

"There is a God after all,'' chuckled one Liberal MP.

I know this unnamed MP was joking, but if any spiritual being has a hand in guiding the Liberal Party, I'd be willing to bet it isn't God.

But does he have a point about the timing? Is three days the shelf life of a scandal?

We'll all know next week, but I can tell you this. I've been in constant contact with a major Canadian on-air media personality with regards to the Income Trust Scandal, well before the events of this week. This person told me during one of our talks that if the main stream media has remained focused on this story during the lull between November 23 and this week, it was largely because the Canadian blogosphere would not let this story go.

Bloggers kept up the pressure, kept revealing new elements of the story, kept identifying new trusts with weird trading patterns, kept finding new links between particular funds and the Paul Martin Liberals.

Christmas comes and goes, but the bloggers are still here.

So I'll tie a string around my finger to remind me about the scandal. Hopefully next week, I won't have been distracted by bright shiny Liberal promises to spend my money wisely on my behalf.

And if bloggers are the string around the finger of the main stream media, then they won't have forgotten about the income trust scandal next week either.

For now, though, some main stream media journalists are doing an amazing job on this story.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:25 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

No really. It's fishy. Like it's about fish.

Oh, and a half-million dollars handed to a Liberal Party lawyer for a non-competitive contract. That's not allowed by the rules, unless the situation is one of "extreme urgency".

What was so urgent? Apparently some salmon went missing, and there was no time to lose in researching the best bid. Indeed, the delivery of the money to this Liberal buddy took two hours days weeks months.

Two months? Extreme urgency? Salmon?

I told you it sounded fishy. Read the whole thing.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives continue to reveal policy after policy, holding the title of the Party of Ideas and Personal Responsibility:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper today did what he admitted was a rarity for him — jumping off a city bus before announcing a plan to give transit riders a tax break.

Mr. Harper said his proposal would save the average Canadian transit user $153 a year. He said that should be enough to ease traffic congestion and pollution by moving people from their cars and onto buses, subway cars and commuter trains.

Harper's plan would allow holders of monthly transit passes to claim a 16-per-cent tax credit. Parents would also be able to claim the credit on behalf of dependent children.

The party decided to target monthly pass holders because it makes the credit easier to administer, he said.

"The idea here is to get people to shift to regular transit usage, particularly for transport to-and-from work or to-and-from education," said Mr. Harper, who acknowledged he hasn't taken public transit to work since he was a private citizen years ago in Toronto, Edmonton and Calgary.

So if you buy the odd ticket for the odd trip, you don't save. The plan is to encourage people to buy passes, which means that the person is encouraged to use transit in order to maximize the value earned from owning the pass in the first place.

Clever.

The standard approach is to hand over a big chuck of money to the transit authority, or maybe to the city and then to the transit authority, or maybe to the province which gives it to the city which gives it to the transit authority. One or more layers of bureaucracy leach away at the money.

And money to special interest groups, the Friends-of-Mass-Transit crowd, who will use the money to "encourage" mass transit, usually by using the money to fund lobbying for government decisions designed to make life more miserable for motorists.

For instance, in 2004, the Liberals handed the Canadian Urban Transit Association in Toronto almost $400,000. This is a transfer, not a contract for specific services, which means they are not subject to audits. And what do we get for $400,000? Well, this issue paper, for example, encouraging the government to raise gasoline taxes even higher, implement road tolls, use zoning to eliminate parking spaces, all "directed at creating a general understanding and acceptance of the importance of public transit among the people who won't use it."

In case you were wondering, the Canadian Automobile Association received no money from the government according to the 2003-2004 Public Accounts of Canada -- Transfer Payments. Its activities representing the interests of drivers were paid for entirely by drivers.

I feel a hankering for beer and popcorn coming over me. Oh save me, CUTA, for my own willfull blindess, even though there is no rapid transit between my house and my job that will take less than two hours for a one way trip. Will that earn me a break for high gasoline taxes, since I don't have a choice but to drive? Hell no. Instead, the Liberal government is handing my tax dollars over to CUTA so that CUTA can encourage the Liberal government to raise my taxes until I give up in desperation.

Again, the Conservative approach is to hand money, or in this case, the tax credit, directly to the individual citizen. We get to weigh the pros and cons of personal versus private transit on an individual basis, and make a decision whether to take advantage of the program.

The cost of the program grows or shrinks based on its popularity, but never costs more than exactly what it costs to run and fund it. No waste.

No middleman eager to pad his expense account with my money.

It's a direct contract between you, the taxpayer, and the government you've elected. Unelected and elitist organizations like CUTA and other organizations shouldn't be speaking on your behalf. They should speak on behalf of their members only, the various transit authorities that pay for CUTA's research and training services.

For those who make a living by finding ways to get government money and spending it on our behalf, this sort of thing must be infuriating.

Update: I've changed the post from "personal empowerment" to "personal responsibility". My readers have convinced me that it better captures the tone of the Conservative platform.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:38 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 755 words, total size 5 kb.

From the Globe and Mail:

Prime Minister Paul Martin said today Finance Minister Ralph Goodale will not resign because of the RCMP decision Wednesday to launch a criminal investigation into whether advance notice of Ottawa's plans for income trusts leaked from the federal Liberal government.

"He is a person of the greatest integrity, and he will not be stepping down," Mr. Martin said during a campaign photo op this morning.

I guess Goodale goes into the Scott Reid bucket of "keepers" and not the Mike Klander bucket of "losers".

Of course, from a purely partisan point of view, this is great news. The longer Ralph Goodale remains minister, the longer will the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc, and the media have a specific identifiable target for discussing the Income Trust Scandal.

You can't underestimate the value of putting a face on a story.

Of course, now we have a Paul Martin soundbite to go along with it, one that will get repeated in an ironic way if and when Ralph Goodale resigns:

"I have full confidence in Ralph Goodale. I believe that an investigation — as does he — will clear the air, including the allegation as to whether or not a leak actually took place."

Is Paul Martin going to go to the mat for Ralph Goodale. My gut says no, but I could be wrong. Clearly, Paul Martin is being supportive right now. But that might have less to do with confidence in Ralph Goodale and more to do with Paul Martin's penchant for dithering. He might be waiting for a poll to help guide his actions.

Still, Paul Martin has staked out a position. If the Income Trust Scandal story goes south for the Liberals, Paul Martin will pay a price if he's forced to change direction. He might come to regret not cauterizing the Goodale gash as soon as it happened.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:56 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

The email I just received from the Liberal Party, with highlighting from the original:

Support a Winning Campaign!

The calendar year is coming to an end, but the election campaign is just getting started!

We want to thank you for your support to date and invite you to take advantage of a great tax credit opportunity.

December 31st is your last chance to donate to the Liberal Party of Canada for the 2005 tax year. Calculate your tax credit via our handy Tax Credit Calculator.

In order to ensure liberal values prevail through this hard fought election campaign, we will need to make every dollar count. Your donation is not only eligible for an exceptional tax credit, but will make a significant difference in the final three weeks leading up to Election Day.

We are only halfway through the campaign. We need your help before the clock strikes midnight on December 31st. Please give generously. And thanks!

Your Liberal Campaign Team

To my Liberal Campaign Team:

Gee, I'd like to give, but I spent all my disposable income on beer and popcorn. Because, as you know, I'm too stupid to know how to spend my own money.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:43 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

From a poll on December 23, before Klander's Slander and the Income Trust Scandal bombshell:

For the first time since the federal election began, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has edged out Prime Minister Paul Martin on issues of leadership that are being tracked daily by a national public-opinion polling firm.

The poll also found Harper leading on the issue of vision for Canada at 25 points and Martin at 20. The prime minister edges out Harper on competence 27 to 23.

The overall leadership index score now has Harper in front with 71 points and Martin with 64 -- the first time the Conservative leader has scored higher than Martin since the SES-CPAC survey began on Dec. 1.

SES's Nik Nanos said Harper started the campaign 23 to 24 points behind Martin on the index.

Remember how the Liberals thought a long campaign would work in their favour. So far, not so good.

Of course, things could change.

And things have changed in the six days since this poll was taken.

Since then, Mike Klander insulted, well, just about everyone via his blog and was forced to resign.

Since then, the Conservatives unveiled a plan to give veterans, including aboriginal veterans, respect and support. This story got a lot of positive media attention.

Since then, the Liberals got a lot of attention as well, but not the positive kind. At the top of every newscast and headlining every newspaper is news that the Mounties are looking into allegations that someone inside of Ralph Goodale's office illegally leaked information about income trust taxation and allowed key traders to profit handsomely. All eyes are on Goodale, waiting for the resignation announcement.

A lot has happened in six days -- the six days when the campaign was supposed to go dormant for Christmas. Has the campaign tipped? Are this week's events just going to add to the momentum measured last week? When the campaign revs up, will the direction become apparent?

And if the Conservatives are starting to pull away, will Canadians ignore the Liberal call for an all out panic? The indications are that it won't work this time:

The survey also shows the Conservative leader closing in on Martin when Canadians are asked who would make the best prime minister. On that front, Martin leads by just three points at 28% to Harper's 25%.

Nanos said so far Harper seems more engaged and relaxed, improving his image, a vulnerability for the Tory leader when the campaign began.

"So, it's not surprising that the Liberals are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at them," said Nanos. "The Liberals still haven't found anything that will stick to Harper. The bogeyman argument, right now, doesn't have traction."

This will be an election for the history books.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:29 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

Bet the Liberals and their supporters are furious at Jack Layton and the NDP for supporting Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party decision to hold an election now.

Remember, if we had followed the Liberal timetable, the election wouldn't have started for another couple of months, assuming Jean Chretien didn't succeed in getting the second Gomery Report delayed with his appeal to federal court. As it turns out, the Income Trust Scandal has exploded in the middle of the campaign, instead of being old news.

With that sort of fury gnawing at them, I wonder how difficult it is going to be for the Liberals put on a false smile and try to appeal to the NDP to support them against the Conservatives. And with the massive gash and uncontrolled hemorrhaging being suffered by the Liberals from the Income Trust Scandal blowing open, on top of Klander's slander and "beer and popcorn", how many NDP voters are reconsidering whether a vote for the Liberals is a strategic vote or a wasted one.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:53 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

From the Conservative Party website:

“The Finance Minister has no choice but to tender his resignation,” said Conservative Finance Critic Monte Solberg. “This investigation confirms that there are reasonable grounds to suspect criminal wrongdoing in his department or office, and as minister he must accept responsibly. That’s how our system works.”

Solberg pointed out that the Conservative Party has consistently raised serious concerns about suspicious trading patterns of certain income trusts in the hours preceding his November 23rd policy announcement.

“Why has Mr. Goodale refused to take seriously the compelling evidence of a government leak that ended up benefiting privileged insiders?” Mr. Solberg asked. “Now basic principles of public ethics and ministerial responsibility require that he do the honourable thing and resign.”

Now read it again, with a few substitutions and additions here or there:

“The Finance Minister Prime Minister has no choice but to tender his resignation,” said Conservative Finance Critic Monte Solberg anyone with a brain. “This investigation confirms that there are reasonable grounds to suspect criminal wrongdoing in his department or office, and as minister in charge of Quebec under Jean Chretien as well as finance minister he must accept responsibly for exercising no oversight over $350 million in public funds. That’s how our system works.”

Solberg Any person with even a shred of intelligence pointed out that the Conservative Party has consistently raised serious concerns about suspicious trading patterns of certain income trusts in the hours preceding his November 23rd policy announcement the allocation of contracts to advertising firms in Quebec and about the official response to the conclusions of the Gomery Inquiry.

“Why has Mr. Goodale Mr. Martin refused to take seriously the compelling evidence of a conclusion of an inquiry confirming government leak manipulation of contracts that ended up benefiting privileged insiders Quebec advertising firms, and ultimately the Liberal Party itself?” Mr. Solberg every person giving this story only a few miniutes consideration asked. “Now basic principles of public ethics and ministerial responsibility require that he do the honourable thing and resign.”

Really, I'm not sure what the difference is. Ain't going to happen, of course.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember what I said about Ralph Goodale keeping his job? That it wasn't really up to him?

Even as we speak, Liberal Blackberries are alight. Many, I am certain, are carrying messages considering the consequences of cutting Ralph Goodale loose.

Cutting him from his privileges and responsibilites as Minister of Finance.

Maybe even cutting him out of the party altogether. Long odds for that one, I think.

But Ralph Goodale's future is not going to be determined by the RCMP, the OSC, or even by Ralph Goodale. It will be determined by Scott Reid, John Duffy, Cyrus Reporter, and others in the Liberal war room. These unelected lobbyists advising Paul Martin are interested in only one thing -- how to get the Liberals back in power and thus preserve their conduits to government influence and cash. If Ralph Goodale's troubles get in the way, he'll be out.

Bourque is carrying news that Goodale is likely to get the boot:

Bourque has learned that embattled Finance Minister Ralph Goodale is being pressured to give up his Cabinet seat for an indeterminate period of time, this in light of devastating news first revealed to the nation here yesterday that the RCMP has launched a criminal investigation into leaks from his department regarding rulings relating to the growing income trust scandal. According to senior sources inside the Paul Martin Liberal Party who spoke on condition of anonymity, "the official party posture is that Ralph didn't know anything and therefore shouldn't have to resign, but the public perception is devastating, it's killing us, and we need to move firmly to squelch the stink." Incredibly, Prime Minister Paul Martin has refused to comment publicly on news of the RCMP criminal probe, though it is understood that he has had a few choice words with key staff about this file.

Any guesses about what those choice words were?

Here are some ideas:

• "Do what needs to be done!"
• "All I'm saying is that we don't need this right now. That's all I'm saying."
• "Let me be perfectly clear..." [followed by an extended silence]
• "Boy, am I lucky they never caught on to any of my leaks when I was in charge of finance!"
• "Scott, what do I think? What should my opinion be on this? Where's the latest poll?!"
• "Will someone go tell Ralph to stop knocking on the door? Tell him we'll call him in when we're ready to tell him what his decision is going to be. Now read that part back about 'After careful consideration of my role as finance minister...' "
• "What a miserable and weary day. It would do well for a smile to cross my royal visage. Call the court jester! Call Feschuk!"
• "Ralph #%&@ Goodale! "

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:08 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

[CTV is now carrying this story, including the issue of the Chinese origins of the phrase.]

When BC Liberal Party President Jamie Elmhirst quoted Industry Minister David Emerson describing NDP Jack Layton, Elmhirst reported a very colourful turn of phrase:

Jack Layton had a great weekend in BC. First he managed to find something nice to say about Svend Robinson, although the performance struck me as a touch insincere, even for Jack Layton. How did Minister Emerson describe his style at our Convention dinner? Oh yes, he said that Jack Layton had a boiled dog's head smile. That would have made even me wince if I hadn't have been laughing so hard.

I thought he was being evocative with his imagery, and dismissed it. I was wrong. The phrase has much more meaning than what I expected.

Apparently the phrase is Chinese:

Saap Sook Gao Tao - boiled dog head - when you really happy and showing all your teeth all the time, you look like a dog head that's been boiled

But more interestingly, the phrase might also be rude, as opposed to being very descriptive.

During the Cultural Revolution, the phrase "rotten dog's head" (zalan goutou) became a popular insult.

But "boiled dog's head"? I found a reference that suggests it is an insult:

To the officer that was smiling at RPCNs for their disturbed look : "Your smile very ugly, like sup-suk-gao-tao (boiled dog head)."

And then that led me over to rabble.ca:

It's not just a Chinese saying, it's an extremely rude Chinese saying, and Emerson probably knew that, as his wife is Chinese.

She is Chinese:

David is married to Theresa Yeuk-Si Tang. Theresa came to Canada from Hong Kong in 1972 and worked for 15 years in the financial services industry.

I can't find independent evidence about how severe an insult this is. But if it is a base and vile insult in Chinese, and Emerson knew that, I might be convinced to reconsider what the right response to Emerson's comments about Layton is.

At least an apology. Maybe more. And maybe the people in the Chinese community would have an opinion about the sort of vile humour (if indeed it is that vile) is being lobbed about Liberal ministers.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:01 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.

1 CAN CANADA SURVIVE ANOTHER THIRTY YEARS OF THIS? Can anyone in Canada imagine going on for another three decades in the manner we have gone on during the past thirty years? Can anyone imagine a three decade continuation of the ballooning waste of tax dollars we have witnessed over the past three decades? Can anyone imagine another thirty years of the past rate of encroachments by the Federal one party state government into Provincial jurisdiction? Can anyone imagine another thirty years of this broken partial ‘democracy’ where almost everything is appointed by a PM ‘elected’ by a minority of voters? Can anyone imagine where we will end up with another three decades of a negative, divisive one party state party government propping itself up by dissing dishonestly our largest trading partner and dividing men against women and ethnic groups against other Canadians? Can anyone imagine another thirty years of being governed by a government that will do anything in its power to stymie genuine democratic modernization no matter what the cost in regional resentments leading to the possible dismemberment of the country? No, we cannot imagine going on as we have been for the past three decades because we know another thirty years like this will spell the end of our country. For most of its history, Canada has been governed by the ‘Liberal’ party of Canada, and so most of our problems, (from the many ongoing decades of residential school abuse, to the divisive and probably illegal encroachments into provincial jurisdictions) are the fault of this ‘Liberal’ one party state party government. No, we cannot imagine another thirty years of being governed by a hypocritical party known for the dishonesty of “running on the left, and governing on the right”. How can we take anything this type of political machine says, seriously, given their record of breach of trust? Another thirty years of corrupting and corrupt governance by Canada’s one party state party, where nothing can be believed, as Jack Layton found out recently, is simply not possible. The attempt by Ontario voters to re-impose this rejected party on the West and Quebec, simply means the end of the original intent of Confederation, and thereby, the end of Canada. This Liberal Party has almost destroyed the country with its corrupt and arrogant legacy of one party rule. Canada’s problems are not economic; they are political, and these ever worsening problems of governance fall squarely at the feet of this continuously centralizing, expanding, corrupt and corrupting, one party state party. Genuine and far-reaching democratic reform is the only option Canada has left if Canada is to be saved over the long term. All opposition parties have come out in favour of democratic reform. Canada has only been a one party state for so long because the Liberal Party has not seen fit to allow democratic reform. E

Posted by: edward mills at December 29, 2005 02:23 AM (c4Z9/)

2 The independent evidence you're looking for comes from Emerson himself, who admits (in the CP story posted on CTV) that he was aware of what it meant: B.C. Grit cabinet minister in blog controversy Updated Thu. Dec. 29 2005 1:26 AM ET Canadian Press VANCOUVER — The Liberal election campaign has taken another hit from the blogosphere after its star B.C. candidate used a possibly insulting term to describe NDP Leader Jack Layton. Industry Minister David Emerson is quoted in a blog written by Jamie Elmhirst, the federal Liberals' B.C. president, as referring to Layton's "boiled dog's head smile.'' An NDP spokesman said the term is an English translation of a Chinese insult. Elmhirst referred to the comment, made at a pre-election dinner, after suggesting Layton's friendly remarks about maverick New Democrat Svend Robinson during an early-December campaign stop in Vancouver were "a touch insincere.'' "How did Minister Emerson describe his style at our convention dinner?'' Elmhirst writes in the Dec. 5 blog entry. "Oh yes, he said that Jack Layton had a boiled dog's head smile. That would have made even me wince if I hadn't have been laughing so hard.'' Stanley Tsao, an NDP campaign spokesman who handles Chinese media, said Wednesday the phrase is Cantonese in origin and can be taken a number of ways depending on the context. Tsao said Emerson's remark showed "arrogance and disrespect,'' especially in light of comments about Layton and his wife that appeared in another Liberal's blog last week. "References like that do not help the debate,'' he said. News of the comment comes just days after a senior member of the Liberal Ontario wing resigned for disparaging remarks about Layton and his wife, Olivia Chow. Michael Klander, the party's Ontario executive vice-president, in his personal blog compared Chow, a Chinese-Canadian and an NDP candidate in Toronto, to a chow chow dog. The blog also referred to Layton as an "asshole.'' In an interview Wednesday, Emerson said he made the remark about Layton in a speech at a dinner during the B.C. federal Liberals' convention the weekend before the election call. He said it wasn't meant to be disrespectful. "It was in reference to his constant chattering away with this great big grin on his face, pasted on, kind of an over-extended grin,'' Emerson said. "It's a Cantonese expression which I use on myself and my wife uses on me all the time when I have to pose for pictures.'' "I was referring to constantly seeing Jack Layton looking like a boiled dog's head, talking about some of these shallow, ideologically driven policies of the NDP.'' Emerson said he learned the jibe from his Hong Kong-born wife, Theresa Yeuk-Si Tang. "She's got tons of them,'' he said. "We certainly use it in our family and my wife says it's commonly used in the Cantonese community. It certainly wasn't meant as disrespectful.'' Emerson insisted it was in jest and said there are other choice Cantonese phrases he could apply to Layton, such as "frog in the well.'' It refers to someone who draws conclusions about the entire world based on a narrow perspective. Layton's press secretary, Ian Capstick, said the remark was indicative of Liberal arrogance. "It's disappointing when they cannot find fault in policy or in our activism or in the way we do our work on Parliament Hill, but instead decide to attack the personality traits of either the NDP here or others,'' Capstick said from Ottawa. Emerson is fighting for re-election in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding after first winning it in 2004. The former forest company CEO and senior provincial bureaucrat became the Liberals' B.C. political minister under Prime Minister Paul Martin, helping deliver billions of federal dollars to the province. The Liberals have given him the lead role in the B.C. campaign, pitching him as the man who helped end years of federal neglect of the westernmost province. The Elmhirst blog appears on the Liberals' B.C. campaign web site (www.teambc.ca) and was highlighted on Bourque Newswatch (bourque.org), which describes itself as the Canadian answer to the muckraking Drudge Report.

Posted by: Patrick at December 29, 2005 03:14 AM (u0igE)

3 But of course, you knew that, since you had it linked to your post. My apologies - I should have read more closely - you're looking for evidence that it is more unseemly than Erickson is intimating, and I don't have that.

Posted by: Patrick at December 29, 2005 03:19 AM (u0igE)

4 Of course it was an insult. Of course the NDP waxeth righteousness indignation. Who was it that said, "Madam, I'm drunk, but in the morning you will still be ugly"? Politics. But when you don't offer the public policies and something for the media to talk about, then they go looking for something to fill the paper. A campaign of "Vote for me because my opponent is ugly" starts to look very tired. A campaign of "Vote for me because I am innocent and my opponent is ugly" is just pathetic.

Posted by: john at December 29, 2005 08:15 AM (fOVEr)

5 These comments are not really part of the campaign. That's the funny thing. They were not intended as campaign statements but they have become them regardless. This is the same problem that plagues the entire Internet: the sense that one can say anything, no matter how insulting or cruel (i.e. a flame), that one would normally never say in person. The blogging thing has given it a pathetic twist. Blogging is popular and people want to jump onboard. As they strive to be cool, and funny, and shoot off the hip like they imagine blogging is all about, they end up saying some really stupid stuff. These gaffes fit neatly into that age-old typically male tradition: showing off to impress your friends. Man oh man, does that ever bite us in the ass sometimes.

Posted by: Ade at December 29, 2005 08:46 AM (4p91Z)

6 Ya know, the recent spate of Liberal apparatchiks being purged for their rude blogging spurred me on to surfing the primary Liberal blogger sites (a distasteful task I undertook for purely scientific purposes)...they certainly stand in stark contrast to the blogs run by CPC MPs or cnadidates. The difference was like that of the tribal vulgarity and dogmatic linear chanting on the Liberal sites to pointed reasoning and personal responsibility and self respect noted on the CPC blogs....most prominent among them was Monte Solberg...Monte runs a class blog...I wish all political commentary could be so civil. I suppose we can only be thankful Caroline Parrish was not PC literate enough to run a blog...I can imagine the venom and vulgarity it would contain.

Posted by: W.L.Mackenzie Redux at December 29, 2005 10:09 AM (sdMWv)

7 Mackenzie, I'm quite certain that by now, an urgent missive has gone out from the Liberal Warm Dead Bodies Room to tell people to clean up their blogs. And I'm quite certain that they've all looked at what they've written and said "Nope, no problem here".

Posted by: Patrick at December 29, 2005 10:56 AM (u0igE)

8 I find these "Bloggings" (if that is the correct term) hilarious. Especially the ones about Chow-chow and boiled dog's head, which I take to mean a false, show-biz type smile. Incidentally, do the Chinese really boil and eat dog's heads? Ugh! Lighten up folks and have a laugh. Take these remarks in the manner which they were intended.

Posted by: Gary Worton at December 29, 2005 11:00 AM (ywZa8)

9 Certainly I suggested that we all take this lightly in my original post. But since then I've come to learn that there may be a cultural component to the insult that goes well beyond the physical description. I don't understand it completely, but it might be one of those things that I would laugh at but a Chinese person who understands the comment would cringe at. If so, and Emerson knew that, maybe we should be taking this a bit more seriously.

Posted by: Angry in T.O. at December 29, 2005 11:03 AM (1nUEP)

10 Cheap Jerseys From China Free Shipping,Cheap Nfl Jerseys,Enjoy The Cheap Womens Nfl Jerseys!

Posted by: Cheap Dolphins jerseys at November 29, 2012 11:21 AM (wmdzq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From Liberal for Life:

I want Jack Layton to step down while the RCMP investigates his moustache
Wednesday, December 28, 2005

That's about as stupid an idea as asking Ralph Goodale to step down while the income trust affair is being investigated. Of course that's the way the opposition likes to do things, Guilty until proven innocent.

I should call up the RCMP under the false name Miguel Sanchez and tell them Stephen Harper and Monte Solberg have been running drugs for years. Then by their own logic they'd be forced to step down while the investigation takes place.

Please Canadians: buy a clue and vote the Liberals back to majority!

If after a review of the allegations, the Mounties found enough evidence to justify an official investigation of either Jack Layton's moustache, or of the drug running activities of Stephen Harper or Monte Solberg, then they should step down.

Duh.

But a review would conclude quickly that any such allegation is nonsense, and no investigation would be initiated. Unless it was an investigation of criminal mischief by Mr Sanchez.

The review of the income trust situation came to a very different conclusion.

It's not about the determination of guilt, or the presumption of innocence. The court of law provides for those. It's about earning, retaining, and protecting the public trust. Protecting the public trust even at the expense of your job.

Normally, I ignore the sort of non-thinking exhibited by Liberal for Life. But the announcement of an RCMP investigation is yet another blow to the Liberal campaign, and perhaps the biggest one so far. It's hard to imagine it getting any worse.

How does something like this affect the "true believer"? Someone who is an uncritical supporter, utterly unable to imagine the Liberal Party doing anything wrong, without it being a setup or a conspiracy, or blown out of proportion, or already fixed and thus a distraction from the "important" issues.

Well, we've just seen an example. It's not pretty.

For the more critical Liberal supporter, the response is more reasoned and more gloomy:

On The Bright Side...

...no one's going to be talking about Klander much.

This is HUGE. Martin will use the "can't comment on an RCMP investigation" line and I doubt we'll find out much else before voting day, but the mere fact that Goodale's office is being ivestigated [sic] is a massive blow to the Liberals. It's also an absolutely golden way for Harper to switch to "Phase 2" and the corruption issue which I've always assumed was his intention for the second half of the campaign.

That makes a lot more sense. Of course, the Liberal Party is better served, in the long term, by members of the second sort instead of the first. While the first can always be counted on for a donation and a vote, the second can be counted on for honesty.

If the Liberal Party is going to survive this unending stream of scandals and gaffes, they are going to have to find a way to fill their collective reserve of honesty, which seems to have gone dry quite some time ago.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:03 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 4 kb.