Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Tim Harper discusses Stephen Harper's current list of distractions - with Rob Ford and his Senate appointees naturally topping the list. But sadly, while John Ivison may be right in noting that actual citizens are having trouble getting the Cons to bother administering federal programs, the combination of scandal and dishonesty doesn't seem to be slowing down their anti-worker omnibus legislation in the slightest.

- On the Senate front, Scott Stelmaschuk compares the Duffy payoff and cover-up to the long-forgotten Chuck Cadman scandal - with the key differences in exposing the story being that Duffy both took the Cons' offer, and managed to document some of the dealings in writing. And Michael Harris points to Helena Guergis as a cautionary tale for anybody hoping to curry Harper's favour.

- Meanwhile, Rinaldo Walcott sees Ford as an ugly example of selective privilege. And John Cruickshank discusses the challenges facing the media in dealing with Ford and others who have no qualms about lying to the public - while hinting that the Star may be more willing to highlight false messages as an integral part of news coverage:

Journalistic fairness says subjects have a right to comment in stories about them. The Supreme Court of Canada insists this is indispensible to responsible journalism.

The Toronto Star has repeatedly quoted Ford denying the existence of a damaging drug video. We have quoted him denying that he has smoked crack cocaine.

But our reporters had seen the notorious cocaine video and knew that he was seeking to deceive Torontonians.

Were we unfair to our readers in allowing the mayor to practise his deceptions on them? Are journalism’s conventions too restrictive in an era when some leaders use lies and manipulative spin as basic tools to tighten their grip on power?
...
The Star has begun a practice of documenting factual errors in accounts of the mayor’s economic claims. This, in itself, is a departure from usual journalistic practice in which the fact-checking or “reality check” function is separated from the news coverage.

Until now, we have not questioned the mayor’s motives in providing the citizens with false news in our stories.

We have let him make his case as we would any news subject.

But the mayor has made all the Toronto media agents of his deceptive propaganda. And this can’t help but further erode the trust Torontonians place in politicians and the media.

- Finally, Jared Milne's detailed discussion of Red Toryism in Canada is well worth a read - even if I'm dubious about his claim that Stephen Harper has done much of anything to conform to its principles. 

Unsettling

As Greg points out, the Libs' apparent unwillingness to discuss anything to do with Cadscam looks awfully suspicious. So let's compare the Libs' apparent position with what might have been expected in assessing the outcome of the Cons' strategy to suppress a scandal.

Here's Ralph Goodale's response to a question about Pierre Poilievre's latest smear of Tom Zytaruk in Parliament:

Outside the Commons Friday, Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said he could not comment, because the terms of the Liberals' settlement of the lawsuit preclude him from discussing the case.

“Mr. Poilievre, presumably using the protection of parliamentary privilege, made some remarks. Perhaps he should be pressed to explain himself,” Mr. Goodale said.

Now, one of the main unanswered questions about the settlement was just what it was that the Libs had agreed not to talk about. And the more likely prospect also seemed to be the more palatable one: that any agreement limiting the Libs' ability to do their job as the opposition would extend only to the specific bribery accusation that gave rise to Harper's defamation lawsuit, rather than rendering the Libs unable to comment on a matter of public interest.

But from Goodale's response, the opposite appears to be true. While the contents of Zytaruk's tape and other questions about the Cons' offers to Cadman were public issues before any of the statements which gave rise to the lawsuit, the Libs are apparently operating under the assumption that Cadscam as a whole - which of course is far from being resolved - is included in what they've agreed not to discuss. Which raises a serious concern about why an opposition party would agree to those kinds of terms.

And that goes doubly when one notes that Goodale himself recognizes a significant need for Poilievre and the Cons to be held to account for their continued attacks on Zytaruk. It would seem virtually impossible to reconcile the view that Poilievre "should be pressed to explain himself" with an agreement not to make that happen - particularly coming from a party which is otherwise bleating about the need for accountability to originate from opposition benches.

Of course, there isn't much anybody else can do to reverse the Libs' bad choices. But now that their ineffective opposition extends beyond propping up the Harper government to agreeing not to raise subjects which the Cons find inconvenient, there should be all the more motivation to make sure the responsibility to hold the Cons in check is held by a party which is up for the task.

Tale of the tape

Following up on last night's post, maybe it'll be another tape entirely that proves to be the big story of the campaign's final weekend. And if a legal gambit intended to keep one of the Cons' ethical issues out of the campaign instead simultaneously puts Cadscam back into the news and lays bare the Cons' dishonesty in dealing with the issue...well, it couldn't happen to a more deserving party.

On creative insults

For all the justified talk about Cadscam this weekend, I'm surprised one tidbit seems to have passed without notice even as Garth Turner blogged about his exchange with James Moore:

Hon. Garth Turner (l): Thank you, speaker. When I was a Conservative member of parliament, before that party threw me out, I heard the prime minister call Chuck Cadman a poor M.P. The prime minister said Mr. Cadman was more concerned with ethics and with the country than he was with political organization and power.

Mr. Speaker, I have always wondered why the prime minister was so angry at the late Chuck Cadman, but now we know a lot more. Was it simply because he could not be bribed?

The speaker: The honourable parliamentary secretary to the minister of public works.

James Moore (c): Mr. Speaker, how dare — the member from Halton never served with Chuck Cadman. He didn’t know Chuck Cadman. Chuck Cadman supported the prime minister when he was leader of the opposition, supported him in his leadership races. The prime minister wanted him to rejoin the Conservative party.

Chuck Cadman was a dear friend of mine from a neighboring riding. And we always supported Chuck Cadman. He was a fantastic human being, a great member of parliament and a dear friend. He has no proof. He has no evidence that the prime minister ever said that about Chuck Cadman. That’s outrageous.

We honour Chuck Cadman’s memory. He was a dear friend. The member from Halton should withdraw that ridiculous question and statement.

From what I can tell, Moore's response offers one of the best examples yet of Cons' crass partisan focus - and the gap between that narrow-minded view and what Canadians would actually expect from their government.

Turner's question can be broken into two premises: that Cadman was known to put ethics and principles ahead of purely partisan interests, and that as far as Harper was concerned that made Cadman a "poor M.P.". The lone statement about Cadman personally is the first one, while the latter is obviously a matter of Harper's judgment rather than a direct slight to Cadman.

But Moore's choice of responses - which of course fit with the Cons' set of talking points last week - was to the effect that Turner's question somehow represented an affront to Cadman, to the point where it would be necessary to rebut it with a positive opinion of Cadman. Which leads to the question of what in Turner's question could possibly be offensive to Cadman personally.

From what I can tell, Moore's attempt to claim outrage on Cadman's behalf only makes sense if one assumes either:
- that it's actually an insult to describe somebody as more concerned with ethics than political power; or
- that Harper personally is infallible, such that the mere fact that he had offered his disapproval must be a sign of bad character on the part of the subject without even considering whether Harper was in the wrong.

What's truly sad is that based on how the Cons have operated under Harper, it's entirely possible that one or both could be seen as true within the party. But it seems highly likely that most of the swing voters who they're now courting would disagree strongly with both - and that the more Harper's "Cons over country" philosophy gets aired in public, the less likely those voters are to provide Harper with the power he's so bent on pursuing.

Bogus analysis

Shorter Jonathan Kay:
While we're at it, Brian Mulroney is a well-connected lawyer, businessman and Prime Minister of Canada. So we can dismiss out of hand the possibility that he would have jeopardized his reputation by taking cash in a paper bag.

What lies beneath

The burgeoning Cadman bribery scandal figures to appear at the top of national headlines for quite some time to come. But what's most interesting for now is the Cons' insistence on denying absolutely everything rather than seizing on a seemingly reasonable explanation.

For that, take a look at the comments at one of the few Blogging Tories sites to mention the issue, where a relatively plausible theory has been presented as to what was actually offered. If the Cons' visit was limited to asking Cadman to return to their party's caucus and listing off the benefits attached to that - including a life insurance policy among other standard party benefits - then many of the questions now swirling around would seem to be answered.

After all, as unbelievable as it seems that the Cons would take out a separate life insurance policy for Cadman, it's relatively plausible that they might have been willing to absorb some greater risk within an existing group policy. And it's possible that inducing an MP to join one's party - even for the transparent purpose of being able to whip their vote on an upcoming issue - would be seen as entirely different from actually offering inducements in exchange for a particular voting result.

But the Cons haven't even tried to suggest that's what happened. Instead, Deceivin' Stephen and his PR crew have tried to at least implicitly deny that the visit to Cadman was authorized at all by the party. And all this despite both the word of their own Surrey North candidate, and Harper's own statement to the contrary in Tom Zytaruk's book.

It remains to be seen whether the Cons are simply reflexively lashing out, or whether they're covering up something more - either in the form of additional inducements offered to Cadman, or a list of standard party perks which might not withstand public scrutiny. But the fact that they went immediately into panic mode when a seemingly obvious explanation was available suggests to me that we've only scratched the surface of the story.