Monday, March 10, 2008

Evading the Obvious

The Conservative Affair that sadly we all refer to with Chuck Cadman's name, continues. What is now obvious, is that the Con's are being very specific about their language and they are evading very specific questions.

Their point man, James Moore, has been ridiculed for repeating 2 or 3 lines, over and over again. It doesn't seem to matter that his spiel is in no way is a response to a legitimate questions. He, in a robotic manner, insists on the repetition.

A recent article clearly tells us just how controlled the messaging is. It also tells us just how dishonest the Con's are being.

When The Canadian Press asked Sandra Buckler, the communications director for Mr. Harper, if anyone connected with the party had ever offered Mr. Cadman the policy, Ms. Buckler replied: "I categorically deny it."
That is the furthest a member of the Prime Minister's staff has gone to date in disputing the allegations of Mr. Cadman's widow, her daughter and her son-in-law.
But Ryan Sparrow, a Conservative Party spokesman, declined in six e-mail exchanges with The Globe and Mail to state that no Conservative official had ever offered a financial inducement of any kind to Mr. Cadman.
And late last week, Ms. Buckler also balked at making that kind of blanket denial – even when it was made clear that financial benefits were not being interpreted to include the campaign funds that the Conservatives admit they were prepared to give the dying MP.
The Globe and Mail asked Ms. Buckler to confirm that "no representative of the Conservative Party at any time offered Chuck Cadman a financial benefit in exchange for his vote [understanding] ‘financial benefit' to mean anything but help with a possible election campaign."
She twice refused, saying only that "the CP story is accurate" and that her "comment to CP stands."

What does that tell you? Buckler is hanging her hat on the narrow wording that the CP reporter used....Insurance Policy. Come on! Think back to how Chuck spoke. He indeed may have told his family it was an insurance policy in an effort to not go into detail or perhaps the Con's did offer that they would ensure that a policy of sorts would be covered by them. He was not a man who elaborated. He depended on the recipient to understand his meaning.

At any rate the Con's are sticking to that story and in the House, Moore insists there was one meeting with Flanagan. They refuse to discuss other meetings, which admittedly they had. Maybe not with Flanagan but with others.

With all of this time passing, I imagine that there has been an awful lot of paper shredding going on. My hope is that someone with a conscience has something to say, something to show.

The odd part of this story is that it's reported that Cadman had decided to run in the next election. I know, I read something recently that said he was told in April just how bad his condition was and upon reflection he decided not to run again. For the life of me, I cannot find that passage anywhere, but if you know it, please forward it. Dona and Jodi may be able to confirm that fact...but to continue to drag them into this seems unseemly.

All I know is Moore's statement in the House today, Chuck Cadman was going to run, is that James is depending on Cadman's public statements and ignoring reality. He calls himself a friend. Good grief. Cadman wasn't answering calls that day, he was too ill. Flanagan himself said how frail he was when they did meet. This was not a man who was going to run again.

Prior to getting the meeting though, Flanagan was frustrated and he wanted a meeting on that day come hell or high water. Cadman obviously knew better than to respond to Flanagan or Finley. So the tough guys, the good cop/bad cop team, decided to employ John Reynolds a decided bad cop and he calls good cop, or at least the one that presents himself that way, Gary Lunn.

I still wonder why the Libs aren't going after him. HE set the meeting up after all. I know he cannot testify to what went on in the room, but surely to gawd he can speak to what and who he was suggesting Cadman should listen to and why. Notice no Ministers in BC are responding to this affair. Only people once removed have come forward. That in itself is telling.

There is too much here people. I suspect that the media will grow weary of the story and start to turn on the Lib's because they are pursuing it too fiercely, but that in my mind would be a mistake. To me, really good journalist's have an opportunity here to uncover what has been only given a peek at thus far.

Evading the obvious serves none of us.


Steve V said...

"There is too much here people. I suspect that the media will grow weary of the story and start to turn on the Lib's because they are pursuing it too fiercely, but that in my mind would be a mistake."

The good news, Duceppe and the Bloc seem equally determined to keep this on the frontburner. Duceppe was visibly angry today, but he keeps hammering. The Justice Committee hearings will keep this alive.

Anonymous said...

I think Cadman did tell the media that he planned to run again. However, how seriously people close to him took this, is difficult to say. Flanagan writes in his book of how sick Cadman was at this time, and even says Cadman was in no condition to discuss returning to caucus.

There is a discussion from 2005 of his running on electionprediction.
Note also that "TC" posted on May 2, 2005 that Cadman had an offer of an uncontested nomination and funding from the Conservatives. He would hardly return home on May 17 and tell his wife of an offer made that day which had been posted on the web two weeks earlier!

Anonymous said...

You're right, there is too much here to hide with continued stonewalling, although it seems to be working surprisingly well so far. To deal properly with the tragic overtones requires a Shakespearian treatment. The Tragedy of Don Carlos fills in the blanks and gives the subject the treatment it deserves. At