After much prodding by other bloggers, I set this up for my own writings. The name is in honour of the two women that mentored me throughout my life on politics and intelligence issues, as well as being wonderful family members, now alas deceased. I hope to live up to their standards at this site.

Monday, January 23, 2006

And now we watch and see what happens next

Well, it is election night, and we get to see just how well the CPC stealth campaign was successful with the average voter in this country. With a campaign clearly intended to present an image of the CPC, its leader, and its political agenda at odds with all the party and its leadership have stood for since not just the birth of the CPC but way back to Reform, the gagging of all the more social conservative candidates from the media and even the voters themselves to prevent any questioning of that part of the CPC agenda (which got little notice, and the silence from the various social conservative groups is suspicious since ordinarily they would be vocal about their lack of representation in the election debate/discourse), and the clear pandering to Quebec voters with the increased international representation for the Province as well as the so called fiscal deficit, we have seen one of the most deceptive campaigns in modern Canadian political history. Not to mention their trumpeting their economic platform as certified by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce only to have their qualified by the man that did the assessment since it was missing two rather expensive CPC campaign promises, to wit the so called fiscal deficit and the health plan aspect transporting people to far away from home places for medical services, both expected to cost billions with the former into the tens of billions being quite possible.

It will be very interesting to see just how vocal the social conservative component of the CPC caucus and base becomes after a CPC win. Although I would expect it to be very loud in the event of a majority, even in a minority I suspect it will nto be long before we start hearing about their plans as MPs and as a part of the government that was not mentioned at all throughout the campaign because of that muzzling. I also will be watching to see how much of the CPC that was presented to the electorate for this election exists afterwards, and how much the CPC that existed prior to this campaign (along with Harper's decades held political views that suddenly transformed dramatically for this campaign) shows up after the votes are counted.

Incidentally, for anyone that was curious, my CPC candidate never got back to me. Got to love that tendency of CPC candidates to promise something and then fail to follow through on it. Remember, this man made this promise entirely of his own choice, I did not ask it, suggest it or anything. He was the one that was being so earnest in his claim that he felt I deserved an answer, and since he counld not do so he had to ask head office and that he would do so and get back to me. He had my number, and he clearly had my address since it was at my door, and he never bothered to even call and tell me he had nothing else he could tell me. He made the big deal of accountability being paramount in the CPC, and that of course he and his party would answer my concerns. I really hate people that make promises that they are not going to keep. I wonder if he did that knowing at the outset he was not going to keep it, or was the response to his asking such that it dissuaded him from responding because then he would have had to knowingly lie to me. I honestly have no idea. What I do know is that he made a serious committment to a constituent he was trying to win over, made a promise to obtain specific information and then inform the constituent of the answer(s), and he did not. Not even from a staffer, nothing. One is left wondering just how extensive the CPC apparant willingness to promise whatever they think the voter wants to hear in this election is not just at the top but all throughout the party. If so, it is a very sad but not entirely unexpected reality given how this party was created and the clear choice of expediency for the sake of power over any actual committment to principles this campaign was run with from that leadership and especially one Mr. S. Harper.

In closing, I am saddened that I was unable to participate so little in this campaign, but unfortunately my health was not very good, especially through the post Christmas period. Aside from a little commenting at a few blogs I really wasn't able to do much more, which is why this blog has laid dormant for so long. I hope that will not continue to be the case, but unfortunately my health and my wife come before my blog. Since I am not some kind of paid political operative (contrary to the belief of many CPC online supporters) this is something I have limited resources to be doing, especially when my health nosedives. Well, with luck things will improve. Well, the polls have just closed in my region, so now the wait is almost over. I leave now to watch the results as they come in, and to see how my fellow Canadian voters did in recognizing the risk of the CPC, the dishonesty of their campaign this time out versus the understandable desire for change after a dozen years, despite the reality that Canada is in better shape in fundamental economic elements than it has been in years. Will the baby be thrown out with the bathwater or not? We know how I hope, but unless the polls missed something it does seem most probable that a CPC minority is what this night will end up being the case, unfortunately.

Friday, January 06, 2006

Just met my CPC candidate and asked him about Grewal

Well, I just had an interesting conversation with the local CPC candidate at my door. He started to introduce himself and I told him that after the Grewal incident his party lost any chance for support I might have been willing to give it. I had no intentions of continuing on beyond that, but he said he wanted to hear what I had to say about it. So I quickly touched on the high points and made clear that I wanted to know who edited the May31 05 release, when did Harper know it was edited, and why once he knew it was edited it did he not explain to all Canadians how he and his party was a party to such a clearly fraudulent action. The candidate started to tell me about the CPC federal accountability act proposed, and I stopped him at that point and made clear that this does not change what happened last year, and that it was the contemporaneous actions of Harper and the CPC leadership that was the problem. That if a party and party leader has a scandal while they're in Opposition and they cover it up then instead of doing the right thing and being accountable for it, how can anyone believe that this party will be accountable for scandals when they are the government. Now, the candidate was trying to dance around this, and then told me he would look into it, that he had no answers for me because he had no information on the issues I was raising. That I was the first person he had met at the door that had even raised the issue. That he would be willing to look into this matter and get back to me. I gave him my phone number and the most important questions, who edited the May 31 05 release, when did Harper know it, and why instead of explaining to Canadians how this happened was the decision to pretend it never happened.

He told me he was a criminal lawyer by training, so I said to him that he should understand then why I would be so upset at specific criminal allegations being made using faked up evidence. He thanked me, asked that I be willing to hold the Liberals to the same standard, which I do. I also told him though that it is not the Liberals that keep telling me about how they are the only moral/honest/ethical party choice but rather the CPC, and which the Grewal scandal undercuts this completely. The one unfortunate thing is that I was rather passionate/upset, and because I am also having to deal with a severe chest cold and a mild fever from it I was a bit too intense and not really giving him much chance to reply. In that I was not being fair to the man, and if he does call me back or come back to my door I will apologize for that, it is only fair. I also made clear that I knew the May 31 05 release was heavily edited for content, and that I have never heard of another case in our political history where specific criminal allegations were made, that there was conclusive evidence to support the allegation, only to have that allegation to not only turn out to be fake, but that unedited the evidence clearly refutes the specific criminal allegation made.

I do not know if I will ever hear an answer to this, or whether I will simply be written off as a nut, an unreclaimable vote, or some sort of Liberal operative. I did find it interesting though that he assumed I was a Liberal because he never asked me to hold the NDP to the same standards I was holding the CPC, only the Liberals. If I do get an answer, or what the CPC considers an answer I will of course post it here. I do find it interesting to note though that he had no facts on the matter and that his only rebuttals were the accountability act and the fact Grewal was not running this time as if that somehow excused Harper and the CPC leadership for their own actions in this matter. I also made clear from the beginning that I was willing to accept the notion that Harper was played by one of his own, but that still did not excuse him from accountability to tell Canadians this once he realized this, and that his actions of claiming poor Grewal was the victim of a media campaign against him instead was NOT acceptable in my eyes, nor was it in any way indicative of a man interested in accountability. I also told the candidate that I used to be a commercial P.I. which was one of the main reasons I was so pissed about this and having my intelligence insulted so by this affair.

It will be interesting to see what he comes back with, and what he is told by his party leadership. My suspicion is that I will get no answer to who edited the recordings, and why Harper and company did not tell the Canadian public who it was and how this happened that they were played for chumps by whomever did this. That I will be asked to trust in the Act they intend on bringing in, and that the Grewal affair was an unfortunate occurrence. I know that especially CPC supporters think I make far too much of the Grewal affair, that it in their eyes was minor compared to all the Liberal money scandals. However, when any party, any party leader makes specific criminal allegations against anyone let alone political opponents, uses unconfirmed/authenticated evidence and claims it to be authentic and conclusive in nature, only to have that evidence turn out to be faked and that the full evidence exonerates the accused of the specific criminal allegation, what else might they be willing to make false/unconfirmed allegations about? Given we are in the post 9/11/01 world where suspicion is enough to get you sent for torture, where even Canadian citizens have no protections against such treatment, this is a very serious issue. Just ask Maher Arar. Indeed, seems to me that the CA and Harper thought initially that the concerns for this Canadian citizen deported by American to Syria was inappropriate, and that it was working against the so called War on Terror, and that we could and should trust our American brethren on this even where our own citizens are concerned.

Grewal is an unprecedented scandal in our history, and Harper and the CPC have done everything they can to date to pretend it never happened. That they did nothing wrong, whereas the Liberals on the recordings are the ones that should be crucified by the Canadian public and not Grewal or the CPC. When a party leader is willing to use questionable evidence to make serious allegations, especially criminal ones, it speaks clearly to the willingness to use anything no matter how questionable to attack an opponent and the willingness to believe in someone(s) being guilty before proven innocent, in this case even after they are proven innocent. This affair illustrates the embrace of some very disturbing thinking about how a democracy and society governed by the rule of law is supposed to work, and I find this to be a serious threat to the integrity and fairness of our political world, indeed, society generally. This is a very serious problem, and it is why I have opposed Reform/Ca in the past. It is not so much the policies they advocate as the willingness to embrace such extreme tactics and strategies to gain power to implement them that troubles me so.

P.S. I hope everyone had a good Christmas and a Happy New Year. I apologize for the intermittent postings the last few months, my health is kinda unstable and I haven't felt like doing more than the occasional commenting at other blogs while I try to keep in some touch with what is going on in the blogosphere.