"That's what I mean"
My latest column is up.
For an alternative view, there's the latest eruption from Mt. Simpson. Seems there's this rogue opposition MP running around trapping innocent chiefs of staff into exquisitely prudent abstractions. For four hours. Or,
Right. He wasn't even on a "bizarre sting operation," but was genuinely offering to exchange his vote for an appointment to people who had no interest in such a trade. And, just to prove he was up to no good, he taped himself in the act. And advertised the tapes' existence to the public. And offered them to the RCMP. Why, it's diabolical... (And not just him. On the tape, there's reference to other Tory MPs having had similar discussions. Did they all approach the government first, unbidden? Did they all refuse to take no for an answer?) But then, this is all just a creation of the "right-wing punditocracy." This shadowy group would appear to include the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and Democracy Watch, all of whom have called for inquiries into the involvement of government officials in this affair. And as for that transcript, hoo-ha! "If this is a smoking gun against Mr. Murphy, somebody forgot the trigger." (Stop! You're killing me!) After all, "In that conversation, Mr. Murphy rules out a Senate seat or some other plum before the vote, but leaves open the possibility of future considerations should the Grewals abstain." So you see? All he was saying was that should the Grewals abstain, there was the possibility of future considerations, but that a Senate seat or some other plum was ruled out before the vote. In other words, if they abstained, future considerations, including a Senate seat or some other plum, were possible, but not until they did. What on earth is all the fuss about? OBLIGATORY GROUCHO REFERENCE: A child of five four could figure out what was being discussed on that tape. Find me a child of four! (Thanks, I guess, to N=1 for the correction, though in fact it works out to n minus 1.) PLAYBACK: Listening to the tape again, two things jump out at me. 1) In the discussion of "Senate, not Senate," and Murphy's ruling out of "explicit discussions" before the abstention, the emphasis appears to be on "explicit." And then "we'll have much more detailed and finely hued discussions after that." 2) Towards the end of the tape, Grewal says, repeatedly, that he was approached by a third party ("common friends"). Murphy assents, repeatedly, then cites the Belinda negotiation as the model for its use of what he calls an "independent" party. Just to be clear, Grewal stipulates, again: "They approached me." And Murphy says: "Yeah, the independent -- that's what I mean." [Emphasis added.] This does not come out fully, if at all, in the Globe's transcript. MORE: Neither does this. Grewal goes on to say he "told them no," and then "another person called." Murphy assents throughout. So here's my question. This tape was made last Wednesday morning, the day before the budget vote, and eight days after the Liberal government had begun its desperate search for votes after being defeated in the House. If, as the Liberals insist, Grewal had approached them, not just once but several times, badgering them for this and that, refusing to take no for an answer -- why didn't anyone tell Tim? Why would Murphy sit there saying "yes" as Grewal says he was approached by a third party, rebuffed them, then finally agreed to talk when they called back? I'm not saying Grewal is telling the truth on this point. Maybe he's making it up. But wouldn't you think Murphy would know this? He says on the tape that he had just come from talking to "Ujjal" that very morning, and that he had also talked to Joe Volpe, so he's obviously in the loop. Why would Grewal make a series of statements that his interlocutor would know were false? Why would Murphy offer no objection as Grewal did so? What did he mean by "that's what I mean"?
equally plausible to an outsider, that he was indeed sniffing around, visiting cabinet ministers, opening up lines of communication for a switch, hoping to secure something then or later for himself and/or his wife.
Right. He wasn't even on a "bizarre sting operation," but was genuinely offering to exchange his vote for an appointment to people who had no interest in such a trade. And, just to prove he was up to no good, he taped himself in the act. And advertised the tapes' existence to the public. And offered them to the RCMP. Why, it's diabolical... (And not just him. On the tape, there's reference to other Tory MPs having had similar discussions. Did they all approach the government first, unbidden? Did they all refuse to take no for an answer?) But then, this is all just a creation of the "right-wing punditocracy." This shadowy group would appear to include the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and Democracy Watch, all of whom have called for inquiries into the involvement of government officials in this affair. And as for that transcript, hoo-ha! "If this is a smoking gun against Mr. Murphy, somebody forgot the trigger." (Stop! You're killing me!) After all, "In that conversation, Mr. Murphy rules out a Senate seat or some other plum before the vote, but leaves open the possibility of future considerations should the Grewals abstain." So you see? All he was saying was that should the Grewals abstain, there was the possibility of future considerations, but that a Senate seat or some other plum was ruled out before the vote. In other words, if they abstained, future considerations, including a Senate seat or some other plum, were possible, but not until they did. What on earth is all the fuss about? OBLIGATORY GROUCHO REFERENCE: A child of five four could figure out what was being discussed on that tape. Find me a child of four! (Thanks, I guess, to N=1 for the correction, though in fact it works out to n minus 1.) PLAYBACK: Listening to the tape again, two things jump out at me. 1) In the discussion of "Senate, not Senate," and Murphy's ruling out of "explicit discussions" before the abstention, the emphasis appears to be on "explicit." And then "we'll have much more detailed and finely hued discussions after that." 2) Towards the end of the tape, Grewal says, repeatedly, that he was approached by a third party ("common friends"). Murphy assents, repeatedly, then cites the Belinda negotiation as the model for its use of what he calls an "independent" party. Just to be clear, Grewal stipulates, again: "They approached me." And Murphy says: "Yeah, the independent -- that's what I mean." [Emphasis added.] This does not come out fully, if at all, in the Globe's transcript. MORE: Neither does this. Grewal goes on to say he "told them no," and then "another person called." Murphy assents throughout. So here's my question. This tape was made last Wednesday morning, the day before the budget vote, and eight days after the Liberal government had begun its desperate search for votes after being defeated in the House. If, as the Liberals insist, Grewal had approached them, not just once but several times, badgering them for this and that, refusing to take no for an answer -- why didn't anyone tell Tim? Why would Murphy sit there saying "yes" as Grewal says he was approached by a third party, rebuffed them, then finally agreed to talk when they called back? I'm not saying Grewal is telling the truth on this point. Maybe he's making it up. But wouldn't you think Murphy would know this? He says on the tape that he had just come from talking to "Ujjal" that very morning, and that he had also talked to Joe Volpe, so he's obviously in the loop. Why would Grewal make a series of statements that his interlocutor would know were false? Why would Murphy offer no objection as Grewal did so? What did he mean by "that's what I mean"?
5/25/2005
related
0 Comments