The Grumpy Voter has posted a warning to the Libs not to get too haughty over the Cadman affair lest they be forced to again wear the shame of the Grewal scandal. Oh, that was a Liberal scandal, Grump?
What's Grewal up to these days, Grump? You might remember that he resigned in disgrace. And, as for his "smoking gun" tape, do you recall what happened with that? Recall how Grewal's tape was found to have been fiercely edited? Recall how Grewal "chose" not to produce the original? And, for the record, Dosanj was investigated - and cleared.
So, don't lecture the Liberals on the Grewal Scandal, Grump. Point your finger in the other direction. Yes, and we're talking about the same bunch that lurks behind the Cadman story.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051129/gurmant_grewal_051129?s_name=&no_ads=
See also the delightful blog, "Buckets of Grewal"
http://bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com/
The Tories must be in a psychotic fit of desperation to drag Grewal to their defence.
What's Grewal up to these days, Grump? You might remember that he resigned in disgrace. And, as for his "smoking gun" tape, do you recall what happened with that? Recall how Grewal's tape was found to have been fiercely edited? Recall how Grewal "chose" not to produce the original? And, for the record, Dosanj was investigated - and cleared.
So, don't lecture the Liberals on the Grewal Scandal, Grump. Point your finger in the other direction. Yes, and we're talking about the same bunch that lurks behind the Cadman story.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051129/gurmant_grewal_051129?s_name=&no_ads=
See also the delightful blog, "Buckets of Grewal"
http://bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com/
The Tories must be in a psychotic fit of desperation to drag Grewal to their defence.
8 comments:
If there is anyone in the Lower Mainland that can sell a one million dollar life insurance policy to terminally ill man, then the first person I will contact is him.
Not suggesting him that he is involved in the Cadman scandal. But, who else should I be calling if I have this dilemma?
Fortunately Grewal appears to have fallen off the radar screens although "Buckets of Grewal" suggests he may still have an RCMP political financing investigation unresolved.
I'm sure the reward Grewal had in mind when he was talking to Dosanjh was the blessings Harpo would bestow on him when he entrapped the Liberal government with his schemes. A truly devious dog.
So Liberals are somehow morally superior to Tories because their scandals aren't as troubling as this one? (Assuming the Cadman situation actually has any legs.)
Grewal set Dosanjh up, that's one of the reasons he resigned but that's beside the point. Show me any party in Canada that ran a federal government with a 100% scandal free record and I will show you a bald headed sheep.
So for Liberals to point that the Tories over this is laughable. Utterly laughable. Let's set aside Grewal, perhaps you forgot about Sponsorship... pretty sure that was a scandal.
How are the Tories worse than Liberals and more importantly, what makes them morally superior somehow? Why should I vote for them if they bring down the government?
That Jesus guy said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."
Lots of stoners in the Liberal party since the Cadman story broke, eh?
I think a more relative question, Grumpo, is how do you sleep defending this so-called leader who would endorse an offer to bribe a man of integrity -- a dying man at that.
It's on tape but don't worry, your man has coincidentally assigned one of his stooges to head up the RcMP. I'm sure he'll find Harper innocent of all things provable...
burlivespipe wrote:
>>I think a more relative question, Grumpo, is how do you sleep defending this so-called leader who would endorse an offer to bribe a man of integrity -- a dying man at that.<<
First off, I'm not defending Harper's position whatsoever. Read my blog because I posted specifically about how to the average voter, there really is no difference between Liberals and Tories when it comes to scandal. Secondly, I'm angry that Liberals are somehow trying to score political points on this when they too are covered up to their necks in scandals of their own invention. I am amused that Harper's "we're gonna be clean and accountable" rhetoric has come back to bite him squarely on the ass and finally, I am saddened for all voters in Canada because we have two federal parties with a long history of creating scandals that get to govern the country because no other progressive party has yet to emerge from the shadows. (And I'm not talking NDP - that's just laughable)
I don't doubt that an offer was made to Cadman. I'm leery of the $1 million dollar life insurance policy part of it because you can't get a million dollar policy for a dying man. I'm troubled that Tories would even consider bribing a dying man - that for me is the big issue.
Grump, vote for who you like, I don't care. Grewal was nothing more than a vile attempt to set-up the Liberals to do exactly what the Tories actually did with Emerson, buy his loyalty with a cabinet post. Isn't it interesting that Grewal was a Tory trying to trap a Liberal while Reynolds was a Tory who sucessfully bagged one - with the lure of a cabinet post.
Cadman, however, is at another level altogether. Once again it's a slimy Tory gambit just with the added element of a guy who's just weeks away from his death. It's unfortunate, even sad, that you don't see the difference because it's there, in spades.
As for the sponsorship business you waive around, notice that Paul Martin was expressly exonnerated of any wrongdoing or anything at all to do with it. How many Liberal MPs were impliated Grump? There were well-placed civil servants and some party operators, granted, but no elected member.
>>Cadman, however, is at another level altogether.<<
Okay so there are varying levels of scandal. Shit man, you should make a "scandal meter" and post it to your blog so we can know which scandal is worse than the next. Never mind that both Liberals and Tories have a long history of scandal. Never mind that voters still have no proof that Liberals learned anything from Adscam other than don't get caught.
You're missing my point entirely. Liberals have no credibility to throw shit at Tories on this (and I'm not even convinced it's a scandal yet) situation (Cadman). Do you honestly believe voters see any difference between both Liberals and Tories? Does the phrase, "politicians are all a bunch of crooks" mean anything to you? That's how most voters view this type of thing. While Liberals look to damage the Tories with the whiff of scandal, what's really happening is they're just reminding us how utterly godawful our elected officials really are... regardless of their party affiliation.
Yes, Grump, I do think there should be a "scandal meter." I wish we didn't need one but then again I wish a lot of aspects of human nature didn't plague us.
It strikes me that no government can be in power for long and not experience some measure of scandal. A party in government, especially in a majority, for many terms is bound to attract - and lose sight of - the sort of people who can give rise to the sponsorship scandal. Many politicians also have investment and business interests that can give rise to conflicts and abuses. In the latter case there's a lot of relativity and sometimes fine lines involved.
What I consider a scandal is a politician or senior party operative getting caught in blatantly unethical conduct. That's not to say that I don't think politicians ought to be held accountable for the misdeeds of others but it comes down to the distinction between misfeasance and malfeasance, inadvertent and advertent.
If scandal isn't treated as a relative problem, the real wrongdoers - let's call them crooks - simply get laundered with the lazy and incompetents. Let's reserve scandal for those genuinely deserving our approbation.
And, when a government gets old and tired and stops paying attention to who has his hand in the public purse, put them in the penalty box for a couple of years.
Post a Comment