Monday, February 25, 2019

If Memory Serves

There is one among our ranks who has pursued the prime minister and others for their conduct in the SNC-Lavalin affair. This person has even named it "LavScam."

Of course, LavScam brings to mind an earlier Liberal scandal known as AdScam or the Sponsorship Scandal that deeply damaged the Liberal brand for a decade.

The individual of whom I write is well aware of the earlier scandal that happened on then prime minister Jean Chretien's watch.

If memory serves, this individual later blamed the Liberal scandal thrashing on Chretien's successor, prime minister Paul Martin. I seem to recall this individual saying the fallout was Mr. Martin's fault because he launched a commission of enquiry when, according to this individual, Martin ought to have stonewalled the opposition critics until the whole business simply went away.

Sorry. Maybe it's just me but I'm having trouble reconciling then and now. Maybe it's just old fashioned cognitive dissonance. There seems to be a lot of that going around.


Brian Dundas said...

This Individual is not a policy leader or thoughful voice of any kind. He's a naked ego haunted and obsessed with settling scores. His thoughts should be considered as nothing more than the sad rantings of a vengeful maniac. Why is he included on Progressive Bloggers?

Anonymous said...

Is this the individual who famously skewered Stock Day and the fundies by pointing out the Flintstones is not a documentary?

If so, he failed in describing "AdScam" as it really was. Nowadays we take it for granted that advertising really does swing elections, which is why we have campaign finance limits to prevent overwhelming ads by deep pocketed partisans, and why we are now looking at what to do about targeted ads courtesy of Cambridge Analytica style outfits.

During the 1995 Quebec referendum, the federalist position could not be pushed by saturation advertising as it was believed people would feel put upon and it would not work. Adscam, "paying advertising companies to do nothing" was exactly that. Taking the best and strongest ad companies out of the game. The kind who could sell refrigerators to the Innuit, who would likely come up with some slogan or other meme that would appeal to the people enough to win the yes side.

I've never understood how it got spun as some sort of corruption issue. It literally saved Canada.

Then again, I've never understood why the per-vote allowance to political parties was spun as a "subsidy" and somehow bad. For some reason, I must instead be publicly identifiable if I donate to a party instead of my secret vote providing that donation. In fact, in light of how important money is to political campaigning (eg advertising), the per-vote allowance is a very close approximation to proportional representation, without the problems caused in some proportional systems where you don't really vote for a specific MP. Proportional money (and no other source of party financing) is most true to the one adult one vote cornerstone of democracy and within one election cycle likely leads to a proportional number of MPs matching the popular vote. Each party puts resources where it is most likely to win.

The Mound of Sound said...

Well, Anon, the criminal proceedings post-AdScam contradict your account. You would be suggesting that a sitting prime minister and his PMO conspired with ad agencies to defraud the Canadian government. You might want to think your facile explanation through again.

The Mound of Sound said...

Brian, you ask a question that's not for me to answer.

Anonymous said...

Brian Dundas - I totally agree. Why is that guy on Progressive Bloggers any more?


Anonymous said...

"A sitting prime minister". You forgot "duly elected". This kind of appeal to authority is more typical of Cons. There was no "conspiracy" with ad companies. Desperate times called for desperate measures. We nearly lost the country and they knew it. Clearly the underlings did not figure a way to block the PQ hiring them without redirecting the money for doing nothing in a defensible way. But I think many people would do things that could be seen as financial crimes if it meant preventing President Parizeau creating his own state, likely without benefit of democracy and so irrevocable. Small price to pay really.

The Mound of Sound said...

I'm sorry, Anon, but your contention is fantastic as in incredible. People went to prison, their businesses and careers ruined, their assets seized, fines levied and they did this why, to take one for the team?

How many of what you would describe as "top" advertising firms operate in Quebec? How many did the Liberals supposedly "neutralize" in your scenario? How many others remained thereafter?

Do you have a shred of corroborative evidence for this scheme? I'm not buying this story. It's much too far fetched.

Brian Dundas said...

Mound, I do understand that the Individual's inclusion on Progressive Bloggers is not in any way within your control! I just wanted to get that out there. Perhaps someone who does pull the strings with that great compendium of progressive thought will have a moment of clarity!

Willy said...

Kinsella is working for his clients. War Room for hire. Harper ads during last federal election. Ford friendly posts and ad during last Ontario election. Con hit pieces on SNC and the ass grab. Regular cheap shots and ego boosting campaigns in between.

Don't think Scott will boot him.

Clarke said...

Kinsella really liked Chretien but has not managed to like any Liberal since. He wanted to run for the Liberals but JT discouraged him, wisely. The newest scandal saw him declare JWR the greatest person ever. He likes Doug Ford and liked Stephen Harper. He supposedly hates racists, but his friend Lisa Raitt has been joined at the hip with the Yellow Vests and he has not said anything. Generally, successful political operatives don't want to become the news story, and WK really likes attention.