The Shotgun Blog
« Which Liberal strategists? | Main | Species-ism »
Friday, December 30, 2005
Which Liberal strategists? Part II
From Ezra's post:
Finance Minister Ralph Goodale surely has some strategists in his office; he's been a cabinet minister and a politician long enough to have a coterie of staff who would fit that description, or at least use it to describe themselves. But could those Liberal strategists -- "well connected" as they were called -- be from the Prime Minister's team?
The decision, on the eve of an election, to reverse course on income trusts was not Goodale's alone. Martin (and his "well connected" strategists) would have been in on the decision. In fact, it stands to reason that if Goodale's office made the first income trust decision, the overturning of that decision would have been primarily the result of Martin's office -- and Martin's staff would have been the most eager to spread the news of same.
In on the decision? No, the PMO made the decision. My source, a senior Ottawa Liberal, tells me that on Friday, November 18, Paul Martin himself told Goodale to cut off the consultations and make the announcement on income trusts.
That was five days before the announcement. Plenty of time for PMO folks to make some calls.
The official story that the PMO only knew about the decision and the timetable immediately before the announcement on November 23 is nonsense.
[Extended entry at Angry in the Great White North]
Posted by Steve Janke on December 30, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Which Liberal strategists? Part II:
"Integrity" Goodale is tossing responsiblity for the leak back to the PMO, saying he (as lowly Minister & member of Treasury Board) was out of the loop on the IncomeTrust leak.
Yikes!, if anyone draws a parallel to the Martin's lame excuse re: sponsorship, I think Dithers is toast on both counts.
Posted by: stephen.leacock | 2005-12-30 9:23:00 AM
The Rev. W. Blaikie: a prophet in his own time.
"Flat Mark will be up for investigation before we know it."
Flat Mark is Nixon I-Knew-Nothing Martin.
Martin knew "nothing" about the corruption of AdScam. Martin cannot use the "I-Knew-Nothing" defence re Income Trust corruption.>>
Martin compared to Nixon in sponsorship debate
CBC OTTAWA-- Prime Minister Paul Martin again faced an opposition out for his blood over the Quebec sponsorship program Wednesday, with one Conservative MP comparing him to disgraced U.S. president Richard Nixon.
The House of Commons' daily question period was almost entirely devoted to the auditor general's report on how $100 million of a $250-million fund meant to raise the federal government's visibility in Quebec ended up in the hands of ad agencies with close ties to the Liberal party.
Martin has denied knowing about the arrangement during his time as finance minister under former PM Jean Chrétien.
"The prime minister is a creature of the Liberal party in Quebec," Conservative MP Jason Kenney said Wednesday. "How can the prime minister claim that he knew nothing, saw nothing and heard nothing?"
Referring to the Watergate scandal, Kenney added: "It sounds awfully reminiscent of Richard Nixon blaming a small unit within the White House for actions that he knew nothing about."
Martin repeated his defence over and over, in English and French, as did the cabinet ministers who rose to answer questions on his behalf.
"These acts were perpetrated by a very small group of 10 to 12 people within the 14,000 who work for Public Works," Martin said.
"They didn't come to cabinet and say, 'Oh, can we break these rules?' They operated in secrecy.
"But there were rumours, Mr. Speaker, and those rumours eventually came out. There was an internal study. When that study was done, it was turned over to the auditor general for investigation."
The opposition wasn't willing to buy that defence.
"I want to assure the Liberals that they've regained the title when it comes to scandals," said NDP House leader Bill Blaikie. "At this rate, Flat Mark will be up for investigation before we know it." >>>
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-12-30 9:46:05 AM
1. Ralphs Parliamentary Assistant is extremely well briefed by Finance officials. He was on the media about 1/2 hour before Ralphs announcement stating no change in income trusts. Therefore its probable no finance official (not political staffers) knew of this announcement. The mess made of Dividend stocks tax changes also leads one to beleive finance was not involved.
2. The movement in income trusts has been the centre of attention, however assuming someone could guess the income trust move (trickey) how does one account for the move in certain Dividend paying stocks which were a separate item .
Posted by: Mike W. | 2005-12-30 11:11:59 AM
thank god for honest public servants. we could do with more of that kind revealing themselves to ensure proper administration of our laws/policies.
Posted by: Ottawa Core | 2005-12-30 11:26:37 AM
How would you interpret this CTV report?
I read as " If you are an apathetic Liberal voting sheep from Ontario or the Maritimes you will know to vote Liberal if Ralph is cleared":
Posted by: metalguru | 2005-12-30 12:08:27 PM
Opps!, wrong link
Posted by: metalguru | 2005-12-30 12:11:19 PM
Some years ago I was investigated and prosecuted by the RCMP for white collar crime. I was guilty, had already confessed to my victims and made restitution. It took the RCMP 3 years to complete their 'investigation'. They were stupid, incompetent, lazy, uselss, dull, bureaucratic dolts.
Didn't they also get a piece of the adscam action?
Telling me the RCMP are going to investigate gives me no comfort whatever. As far as I can see they are as hollowed out and useless as the CBC, just not so public and obvious.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
Posted by: x | 2005-12-30 5:51:10 PM
X, right on Mate. The only difference between the two is one has a yellow stripe up it's leg.
Posted by: Western Canadian | 2005-12-30 6:54:39 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.