Kind of says it all, doesn't it?
While Harper was toasting his new political role model downstairs, his old political ally was at a separate event in the same building.Still waiting for an explanation from Mulroney as to why he took $300,000 in cash, in hotel rooms, from Karlheinz Schreiber -- what he did for the money, what he did with it, and why he didn't tell the court this rather salient fact at the time he was suing the government for saying he took money from Karlheinz Schreiber in the Airbus affair.Reform founder Preston Manning was attending a gala for the small-c conservative think tank named after him.
Harper made a brief visit to the Manning event...
Apparently these questions do not trouble the current prime minister of Canada.
IRONY SUPPLEMENT:It turns out that taxpayers are picking up the tab for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's personal primper.
After two days of ducking media and opposition questions, the Conservatives finally revealed Wednesday that Michelle Muntean is on Harper's government staff.
But the revelation raises two more big questions: How much is she being paid? And why is there no government record of her employment....
As an MP, Harper went after Reform Leader Preston Manning publicly for not detailing his party-paid clothing allowance. Under pressure, Manning eventually did provide an accounting of the $31,000 perk, but tensions between the two men had begun in earnest.
4/18/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
60 Comments
Actually Andrew,
this post pretty much says it all.
$300 g's. A lot of speculation, nothing proven.
Mulroney was the most prominent conservative leader in a century, and Harper is tarred for toasting him.
Funny, we still have millions and millions of dollars that we KNOW were improperly funnelled into the party Dion now leads, that has never been accounted for.
Your Dion doesn't seem to think this whole "clean slate" thing involves, I dunno, cleaning the slate. That would involve more than words.
They took it, and they're keeping it. Dion's keeping it. It's that simple. In the real world the funds would be traced and forced to be returned by law.
And you don't have to go back three regimes and a decade ago to look for it.
Nope, it was the last government in power that stole the millions from taxpayers. The one in which Dion was a cabinet minister. A senior Quebec Cabinet minister.
An almost certain benefactor of the ill gotten booty. It helped members of Dion's party get elected.
Dion toasts himself all the time. He saved the seabirds after all.
How could Dion toast.........Dion.
How could Dion be in the same room as.......Dion,
after the party he leads still keeps the stolen millions for itself.
I'm sure you were going to get around that little issue,
the more recent, the vastly more significant in quantum, the more damning issue,
any time now, right Andrew?
Going back to Mulroney was just a little warm up, right?
Right?
Bravo, Biff. That's something I'd like straightened out myself.
"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." John F. Kennedy
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill
"Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." George Bernard Shaw
Re: the PM's sartorial advice. I distinctly heard Gov. House Leader Peter Van Loan assure the House that the PM pays for his own wardrobe.
Are there now people whose only mission in life is trying to determine how many pairs of Gucci shoes the PM owns, if any?
Petty people look for petty things!
It was an interesting analysis. I am totally on board with finishing the investigations. Why do you think Mr. Harper is in no hurry to go to the polls. Things will probably only get better on the Librano Inc. racketeering front.
The rest of us would like to know where the booty is buried.
And within minutes of my query regarding Andrew tackling the millions of stolen funds Dion's party still possesses,
Andrew responds.
An update tackling the pressing issue of money on Harper's image/makeup person.
Yes it says it all doesn't it.
1. Who cares about the Karl-Heinz Schreiber case? Unlike the Liebrano Party of Canada, Mulroney was found innocent.
2. Links from the Toronto Star...Coyne has put the low in yellow tabloid journalism.
I don't care about the image consultant...yet. If her salary is more than a Senator makes, then I'll be unhappy.
On the Sponsorship thing, I think that we should listen to Hal Holbrook and "follow the money."
As for comparing these things, I will consider voting Liberal and not voting Conservative if Harper's image consultant shows up and she
A) Claims to have done her job even on holidays
B) Has no recollection of the work done
C) Has no proof work was done
D) Raised funds from dead people a la Volpe
E) Includes Bob Rae and Volpe on a "dream team"
F) Claims to be positive and coins the phrase "climate change denier"
and
G) Claims to have a good environmental record when George Bush didn't mention the words "global climate change" until 2007, yet in the time previous did better then her.
Man, am I ever clumsy. I was looking for Andrew Coyne's website, but I seemed to have accidentally typed "www.clairehoy.com" in the URL bar.
Boy, this "Biff" guy goes into every blogging site he can find and brings up "old tiresome" nonsense.
Even if you exclude the $300,000 issue there was a lot of problems ethically during the Mulroney years so trying to paint like a saint is laughable.
I know PM's use image makers, but really, can the man not comb his own hair? Give me a break. I want my money back.
When Mulroney has been considered the "most hated" PM in our history it's hard to put him up on a pedestal. Enough already.
Harper a visionary? Ah, copying is "visionary" it's copying. Huge difference. This Toronto boy has gone Alberta on us and is totally influenced by American politics and policies.
How about a "Canadian" vision Harper - it would be nice.
PS: Biff do you not have anything else to do with your day? How sad.
Re Mulroney....two time prime minister large majorities, did more to reform the econmic base of this country than any other....in a positive way....and a "conservative" of course Harper should be there to honour him.
Schreiber? Yes that is troubling and needs to be explained but that shouldnt keep Harper away.
Re the Image consultant....legitimate that he has someone doing that....who pays them? Well where was Chretiens paid from? Just do that and you should be fine.
Ideally, I am more troubled bvy imporoper adminuistration of her employment records, looks like trying to hide something.
That is actually a more legitimate expense than Cheretien paying for golf balls out of a national unity fund....but ideally it is a party expense.
Uh huh Anonymous...and William Lyon Mackenzie was not influenced in his push for responsible govt by the Americans.
I bet you'd rather live under a Communist dictatorship than a democracy.
That sums up Liebrano scum ideology to a tee.
When was Mulroney "found innocent" of anything? He did, it's true, successfully sue the government for claiming he took money from Schreiber, but that's hardly a finding of innocence (especially since it has since come out that he DID take money from Screiber).
To me, the whole thing seems pretty sordid. First, Mulroney is accused of taking money from Schreiber, claims he didn't, and sues the government for saying he did. Then it's revealed that he DID take the money ($300,000 in cash, handed over in hotel rooms) and Schreiber can prove it. So Mulroney says "Ohhhh, THAT money. Well, I worked for that money fair and square by promoting Schreiber's pasta business, and the fact that I collected the money for my work in cash, in private meetings in hotel rooms, shouldn't seem suspicious at all". THEN Schreiber says Mulroney never did ANYTHING after leaving office to earn that $300,000, and that the only time the pasta business was ever even mentioned was when he once sent Mulroney a brochure for the company. Since then, I think Mulroney has been pretty silent on the issue.
The Prime Minister was accused of taking money from a businessman to rig a government contract. First, he claimed he never recieved any money. Then, when the proof emerged that he DID receive money (in cash, in private meetings in hotel rooms) he changed his story to claim it was a legitimate fee for services. I'm still waiting for Mulroney's latest story, in response to Schreiber's claim that such services were never rendered.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars, in cash, quietly handed over directly to a former Prime Minister, in private hotel meetings, with no record of any work being done for said money, and a claim from the payer that no services were rendered (after the PM's term ended) for the services. Sadly, until Schreiber is willing to throw himself under the bus and come right out and incriminate himself by saying precisely why he gave Mulroney the $300,000 there will be some people who think this was an entirely innocent secret cash transaction.
Mr. Mulroney helped lead the charge on Mr. Mandela...
'Nuff said
I love a good debate. Hang on, I want in too...
Oh yeah? Your guy was worse. He probably did really bad stuff. My guy only maybe did sorta bad stuff. So there!
If that doesn't work, I'll stick out my tongue and call you a meanie.
well yeah at least Harper owned up to it. like he did here.
can we imagine Andrew doing the same thing? not too often, i'd imagine.
>Apparently these questions do not trouble the current prime minister of Canada.
All the apologia above still evades the heart of the matter.
Harper promised to be different, and should follow his promises. And when he does, he will be rewarded with a majority by Canadian voters disgusted with tainted government and disgusted with their own appetite for handouts in various forms. It is inconceivable that if Harper follows his promises and consequently dries up a number of taps, we will end up with Liberals back in office handing out the necessary monies to various interests.
Proving once again that Andrew Coyne is the Tragically Hip of Canadian journalism. Great band. Retarded fans.
lol.
But, Andrew P, are you saying that you are not a fan of AC?
I'm sure that the dichotomy is great fun, but AC and others are racing past the other vignette"
"Mulroney dropped in on Harper at his Centre Block office on Parliament Hill Wednesday afternoon along with former Ontario premier Mike Harris and former Reform party leader Preston Manning".
No doubt Brian and the boys toasted Andrew, the G.G., and the Queen.
BTW, Great shot Mr. Potter and Mr. Cherniak (Satan's minions must be donning skates in honour of Jason's cracking a joke). Wells pre-occupation with the Friends of Andrew continues apace.
i hate the Tragically Hip. lemme guess Mr. Potter. you're also a fan of Celine Dion and Nelly Furtado? ha ha!
Paul Wells?
"Today is one of those days when the dialogue between Andrew Coyne and his comment board is a testament to Andrew's patience. He has had the temerity to criticize the current prime minister, and the anonymous legions are lining up to punish him."
I see 10 comments, some anonymous, but punishing? Requiring patience?
Where? Who? what?
You're reporting a future donnybrook?
Potter, you are really onto something there. Like the Hip, AC's best work was his early work, lately he's seems bent on a quest for idelogical purity.
yeah there's actually an earlier Hip song that i cannot claim to dislike with a straight face: "38 years old". i think that's what it was called. it was just one of those things that was hard to get rid of in your head.
but my main beef with them, aside from my lack of fondness for most of their songs, is their clearly overblown status. you hear people say all the time that they're the Canadian Beatles. gimme a break. (and i don't even like the Beatles, even though i know that this puts me in a much-maligned minority - and then all i need to do is tell you that i also hate Queen and Bohemian Rhapsody and then you can crucify me)
Wells blogging about blogging? How charmingly meta of him.
Then again, there are only two ways to get into Wells' good books: wear a bebop beret and drone on endlessly about Miles Davis or be Stephane Dion. I dare say both options are too blood-curdling to even contemplate.
y'know, not to downplay Paul Wells' obvious hostility against the motley barbarians (which includes me i'm sure) at Andrew's comments sections but if i have to choose between Paul Wells and Andrew Coyne to be the last pundit alive on planet Earth, i'm going to have to choose Paul Wells.
this is to say that if you've been closely reading Andrew's stuff lately, you should give credit where it's due to people who are... uh... ever so marginally less virulently anti-Conservative.
but yeah i shake my fist violently at Paul Wells. damn you and your everythings!
Is it the going to the event or just that the event is the latest in Harper's transformation from Mulroney gadfly to Mulroney acolyte?
If the former I dont get the criticism, although Wells lays out an interesting juxtaposition. If the latter, yes Harper has travelled an interesting road to say the least.
But if I may raise the questin, Is any association with Mr Mulroney and his acknowledged accomplishments allowed? As dangerous as that might be, given his also acknowledged flaws.
The primper...at least she isnt a fluffer...has the potential to really derail Mr Harper. It does cut to the heart of why people voted for him, that he appears to be Mr Middle Class, arrow straight and stiff to a fault. Should that not be the case the disappointment will be immense.
Coyne, Potter and Wells are closer observers of the man than I am, its their job and I have a day job. Has he really lost his soul in the quest to build a new political alignment? Suffered the strategic loss due to being overly tactical....(oh god I better stop before the inevitable unspeakable comparison arises)
http://www.debbieohi.com/trek/pics/02chess.JPG
I WISH you all would stop talking about me.
Pauls Wells is playing the role of Khan in Star Trek II, whilst he chases the commenters around the Mutarae Nebula to the end of perdition's flame.
"With hell's last breath I stab at thee."
We commenters are tragically flip.
I wanted Preston Manning to be PM, most of the people I knew here in Calgary wanted it too, but the rest Canada did not. Something about a squeaky voice and unfashionable glasses was too off-putting for the 905 belt. So the ex-reformer Harper reads the signs, vows never to be seen with anything unfashionable, (I doubt if the on-the-payroll fluffer would have allowed Harper that gay caballero leather outfit a couple of years ago), never to be seen to be advocating any meaningful change, because that's what the GTA wants.
I suspect there are still old CCFers in a church basement somewhere singing 'Jerusalem' just as there are old Reformers pining for lower taxes, less government and a EEE senate, but with the dead weight of Windsor-Quebec holding it down, it ain't gonna happen.
Reform is dead.
Somewhere, Joe Clark is laughing.
I find it hilarious that old Reform/CA people who once lambasted Mulroney for corruption now defend him - isn't that right Biff?
if you're saying that as a Liberal, Glen, that would be even more hilarious.
very few people stuck with Reform through thick and thin. and certainly not Paul Wells or Andrew Coyne. what kinda woodwork are all you people coming out of, criticizing Harper for abandoning Reform values or some other hodgepodge? if Harper suddenly goes back to the good ol' Reform days again and gets panned by the media for evil hard-right wingnuttery, would any of you come to his defense? Paul? out of the question. Andrew? he wasn't even that pro-Reform during his earlier and less anti-Conservative days. "Glen"? you're probably a Liberal (or Dipper, or Green, or Communist, or CHPer, or whatever).
Stephen Harper might have an imperfect record of defending what Reform stood for, but as an insider, he did more for the cause than all of you - Paul Wells, Andrew Coyne, and "Glen" - combined. thank you very much.
PAUL WELLS
(I know you're lurking here somewhere)
A few dissenting comments and you're commending Andrew on his "patience".
I know how you long for the good ol days where there was a single unified source of one way information that was told to Canadians. The days where a handful of journalists and pundits decided what news and views would be printed for Canadians consumption. The good ol days where the Liberal mindset operated unfettered, where folks like Harper could be lambasted for a concocted "hidden agenda" without meaninful scrutiny or dissent.
Andrew isn't being "patient" he's being open.
I may not agree with his views of late, and think he's overly tied to a pro-Dion agenda,
but I respect the fact that he allows free and open comments.
Paul, the one sided conversation is over.
Better get used to it.
Is Harper what he was, well he certainly isnt acting like the strident 30 year old MP he was.
I dont think too many people have trouble wih that. There are elements of his transformation that show maturity, reality etc.
The dance with Mulroney IS an interesting one given that Reform, was a reaction to excesses of the Mulroney years. I felt Reform was ultimately a dead end, preferring to see reform from within the conservative movement (what a shock a conservative wanting conservative change)
The sad effect was it gave us all those years of Chretien unchallenged, but thats another story. Manning's ultimate goal was a transfrmation of the conservative movement in Canada. I think he was surprised and flummoxed by the whole unwillingness of Reform...Alliance..CRAP....to be able to cross the Manitoba Ontario border. Some things dont travel well.
Anyway, the transformation happened, whether it will be sustained is another question. Acknowledged goal of both sides is that there is a conservative movement in Quebec, but it was buried under the nationalist/federalist cold war. Remove that blanket and the conservatives can emerge. We seem to be seeing that now.
For all his faults few people understand or are as connected to the Quebec conservative movement, such as it is, as Mulroney. You would be a fool not to listen to him.
However, that doesnt mean that if there is corruption that it should be ignored. I do find it hard to believe that he would have engaged in that kind of thing. But the $300,000 payment hasnt been properly explained. Mind you he declared it on his taxes so that says something, generally you wouldnt decalre a bribe, not having received any I wouldnt know for sure.
So Mulroney is a interesting figure for the conservatiove party. I like what he did do, GST, Free Trade and I appreciate what he was doing with Meech. I was horrified by the seamier elements that generally emanated from the Quebec rump of the PC party, unecessary as far as I could tell.
So is this "dispute" about Harper or about Mulroney?
I cant really see what the dispute here is, other than the on going battle between AC and his readers over Harper. AC I think had higher hopes and, as is his right and job, is pointing out the contradictions. Wells is generally disgusted at the level of debate and maintains his patina of hip and cool objectivity.
Personally, for whatever thats worth, I am not at the holding my nose stage yet. I have admitted that I am willing to cut slack based ont the minority situation. But the "fluffer" issue holds some potential here for major disappointment, makes you question why you would give any politician any benefit of any doubt. Lets see the response.
BTW can we declare that the chess checkers thang has officially "jumped the shark" (did so about 6 weeks ago in my estimation)
Paul, the one sided conversation is over.
Oh, this is amusing. The screwball internet troll/sock-puppet extraordinaire "Biff" lecturing Paul Wells.
Mr. Coyne, at some point, you're going to have to address the fact that a large number of "conservatives" are simply nuts.
Biff:
You're wrong. With hit and run Wells the conversation still is one-sided.
"r. Coyne, at some point, you're going to have to address the fact that a large number of "conservatives" are simply nuts"
Is there ANYTHING Liberals won't say or do to regain power? Guard your grannies.
Wells is a journalist. He said something, he linked it, I came and saw. There was absolutely nothing like what he said at the time he posted.
Some journalist eh?
I kinda thought Biff got things off to exactly the start to which Wells was referring.
Is there ANYTHING Liberals won't say or do to regain power? Guard your grannies.
I'm not a Liberal, but in any case, it's always prudent to point out the people running around sceaming hysterically and wearing propellor beenies.
Was anybody reading Andrew Coyne's blog during the Martin years???? He wasn't exactly a cheerleader for the Liberal government.
He's a journalist who has a job to do. Should he give the conservatives a free ride because certain people think he should?
The guy lives by a list of what he thinks is right or wrong. He seems to hold all politicians to account by that list regardless of their political stripe. Is that so bad? Even if there are issues I disagree with him on (Quebec, gay marriage, Trudeau federalism)I can respect him for his willingness to criticize ALL politicians and not be a lap dog for one particular party.
I think that Stephen Harper is the best choice for PM. He is a leader despite his faults and a man who I believe will change Canada for the better. But a personal make up artist paid by the taxpayers???
Come on.
One has to admire a guy like Coyne who seems to have this wide eyed innocence about politicans. Either he is really good at acting or he actually gets disappointed when politicians don't live up to their rhetoric. He is either an eternal optimist or hopelessly naive.
Same for Wells...
Stephen: I doubt most people think and act the same at age 47 as they did at age 30. Hell, Bob Rae claims to act/think differently at 58 than he did at 55!
Going back to an earlier question here...
Will it ever be appropriate or proper for a Conservative politician to toast Mulroney's very obvious successes as Prime Minister? Isn't it time Canada's chattering class get over it? Like all PMs, Mulroney has a mixed record but in hindsight it is proving to be an overwhelmingly positive one. Liberal fete and toast Trudeau, a man who drove the country's economy into the ditch, had no credibility internationally except with Fidel Castro, and openly fostered anti-Western attitudes in order to sweep the terrified sheep in Ontario and Quebec, doing serious damage to national unity and dialogue. Worst PM in history and now his airhead son is hoping to continue on the socialist/nanny state tradition.
But but but...Mulroney alleged took money in an unproven allegation!!! OMG!!
Same for Wells...
Please, while we may forgive Andrew for his weird man-crush on Dion, Wells is just an asshole. He always has been.
Worse, he's a bad writer. Take a look at his wrap up of the last election, i.e. "meaty chunks that go down well with beer," yeah - that's freakin' brilliant writing. Good job!
Wells just likes to crawl out from under his rock every third post or so to spew his nonsense and then run away. I don't know what is more pathetic - his same old refrain of anyone who posts an opinion is an idiot or the fact he feels it necessary to post the same thing in someone else's comments thread again and again and again ...
"Wells is just an asshole"
Well, there's some constructive criticism.
I have to say the same thing about Wells. Okay, sometimes he does come across as a smart ass but I have to admit that I find it clever and amusing when he unleashes on the Liberals and unfair and annoying when he does the same thing to the conservatives.
Another guy who won't play lap dog to one particular party.
For the record I do believe that there is a Liberal bias in some outlets of the media. As I recall Wells made mention of that in his book. But I don't believe that Wells or Coyne fit in that description.
"One has to admire a guy like Coyne who seems to have this wide eyed innocence about politicans. Either he is really good at acting or he actually gets disappointed when politicians don't live up to their rhetoric. He is either an eternal optimist or hopelessly naive.
Same for Wells..."
Actually really well said.
Excapt for the part about PW....there is more of a willingness to accept "the game" in him But PW loves, like any journalist, loves the contradiction and loves to highlight hypocrisy. Wide eyed innocent is not what I would say PW is.
On his good days AC reminds me that politics need not be all about tactics and bloodlust with the opposition but actually getting things done.
The Schreiber backroom shenanigans are a big blot against Mulroney, there's no doubt. But, in terms of acts of a Canadian PM, Mulroney was one of the most active, bold, and visionary PM's Canada has had.
A quick list:
- Free Trade
- GST (replacing the stupid MST)
- Acid Rain Treaty
- Scrapping the NEP
- Efforts against Apartheid in SA
- Meech and Charlottetown (you may not agree with them -- I don't -- but you have to admire the boldness, courage, and pure effort of will such negotiations require)
- Starting the privatisation process for both Air Canada and Petro-Canada, and deregulating telephone services
- Getting us into operating surplus
- Thru his Bank Governor, bringing inflation to heel
- Handed the biggest peacetime deficit in Canadian history (8.2% of GDP), he brought it down to a more manageable level w/o large impacts on gov't services
- Spent a good amount of political capital shifting the debate on the deficits and debt, priming the public for the deficit fight ahead
MacDonald had the Pacific Scandal, a horrible scandal, yet is still regarded as one of our greatest ever PM's. Who knows how history will treat Mulroney's dark and shady bits in a century's time?
Having said all that, I would love to have seen how Manning would've fared as PM. He woulda been a great one I'm sure.
He is a true visionary, but also with a hand on the current pulse of the nation. Even after suffering through torrents of abuse, Manning always maintained his integrity.
More MP's like him please, and we'd have a Parliament full of honour and vitality.
If AC, Potter and Wells are going to complain about anonymous posts, then why doesn't AC remove that option??
I don't wish to register, but I have no qualms about having to provide a screen name, to connect me to prior posts.
The problem with the style expert on Harper's staff is that it appears after 2 days of silence the government acknowledged she was in their employ and being paid by the taxpayer yet her record of employment was unavailable. Why? I cannot see how there is any basis to keep the hiring of a style expert hidden from public view as a national security issue, so that rationale doesn't work and I can't think of any other legitimate reason for a government to hide the employment of someone from the public record. That is where I see a serious issue here, and not merely her presence itself. These days in such a video rich environment one can make an argument that any PM should have access to such a person since they not only represent their party but also the national government of Canada. So why hide her employment?
Now, I can think of various reasons, from some sort of dark deal to some fear of being castigated for having one when Harper made a big deal out of it with Manning in the past (aka embarrassment factor trying to be avoided) to simply being a reflection of a government that prefers to make secret anything and everything it can so as to minimize the ability of government opponents to be able to discover where the actions of the CPC government do not match their words and promises. I really do not know what the explanation of this is; all I do know is that the attempts to hide her employment both before the questions started and then for 2 days afterwards does not look good. It looks suspicious and it looks sneaky, and this undercuts the image of Harper the clean cut (not that I ever bought that premise, but it is the image the CPC wants Canadians to believe in clearly) which has already taken quite the beating thanks to his first 14 months of governing.
As for Mulroney and Airbus, he was never "proven innocent" as some here are claiming. Indeed, as others have already noted in this thread the Chrétien government paid Mulroney for "falsely" claiming Mulroney had received monies from Schreiber. Yet several years later it comes out that contrary to the Mulroney claims of innocence at the time he took 300,000 dollars from Schreiber and the only official record for it was on his income tax form. That looks bad, and given the questions floated around this for well over a decade suspicious.
I do not know the truth here, what I do know is that Mulroney has not been able to satisfactorily explain the work he did for 300,000, not when the original Mulroney explanation given was contradicted by the person that paid him. Since then Mulroney has been very quiet on this, which tends to imply that there is something serious there, otherwise he would clear this all up especially given the lingering odor of corruption it leaves around him.
muldoon was as visionary as nixon. both had some good spots, but will always be remembered as the crooks they were. what's with this claptrap about muldoon being fiscally responsible??? the least fiscally responsible gov't ever...some accomplishment.
stevo said:
"But but but...Mulroney alleged [sic] took money in an unproven allegation!!! OMG!!"
umm, he has conceded that he took the money...i think that means that it is not "unproven". you gotta love the cajones of a criminal who takes the money and then sues taxpayers b/c the rcmp sent a letter to swiss banks saying they think he took the money. but, we shouldn't put all the blame on lyin brian, after all, he did lead the most corrupt cabinet in canadian history.
as for the makeup maven, she should be fired. ever since the last election i have been criticizing harper's mascara b/c it looks way too tranny. i think they started applying the eye liner/mascara b/c so many people said he had dead eyes and a vacant stare, but the drag look isn't becoming. his hair is better though. i don't have a problem with the taxpayers picking up the tab, as long as it isn't too pricy...but, the gov't does have an obligation to tell taxpayers how much it is costing. i think that is called "transparency" and "accountability". would be nice to actually see those things, as opposed to just hearing about them all the time.
canuckistanian
ps: what is with all these anonymous posters? pick a stupid name like "i'm an anonymous poster because i like to lurk in the shadows like a cowardly fool" or something.
Anonymous:
Nobody has ever proved wrongdoing on Mulroney's part and, with all due respect, you don't sound bright enough to be an expert at criminal law, so I'll leave others to convince me otherwise.
Your statement about Mulroney running the "least financially responsible government" in Canadian history is contradicted by virtually every reputable economist and historian in this country, including the good folks at McGill University (hardly a bastion of Conservative partisanship): http://www.mcgill.ca/files/economics/mulroney2001.pdf
I'm not going to waste much time trying to change the mind of a Liberal drone who won't let go of his convenient fictions. I feel no shame in celebrating Mulroney's many successes while acknowledging his failures on the Constitutional front, just as you Liberals love to celebrate Trudeau's transformation of this country into a Nanny State while overlooking the fact that he spent his 20s and 30s praising Hitler.
Btw, I agree with you on the wardrobe consultant. But then again, if Harper resembled the fashion-challenged middle-class, non-elitist man that he is (and whose wife probably has shoes from Payless, in the words of Margaret Wente - my new favourite national columnist since Andrew when Dion-cult on us), you Rosedale Liberals would have a field day.
Even though I was a naiive PCer during the 90s... I cant help but admit that what Harper is doing is everything he campaigned against. Manning stood for principle, Mulroney for electoral gain. I was hoping that Harper would be a synthesis of the two. Maybe, he is veering a little too much to one side.
Canuckistan: If you or anyone else uses "i'm an anonymous poster because i like to lurk in the shadows like a cowardly fool" as a screen name, I am going to have to ask you to lawyer up for copyright infringement. I was the first coward to be called out for posting here anonymously, and I intend to protect my brand!
Either that, or I may have to switch my name to Anonymous Coward, but that has some acronym-related problems. Maybe *AnCo* for short... no wait, that won`t work either.
It just says to me that you can run on good ideas, but you can't run against the political establishment for ever.
It's called mature small c conservatism.
The dirty little secret of Canadian Politics (well, yet another one of them)is that politicians will always cover up for their predecessors no matter what the party stripe.
Years ago, I voted for Mulroney in hopes that he would be a new broom and get on with a through investigation of the ills of the later Trudeau era. That is, there might be some attempt to try and follow the cash through the PetroCan financial fiasco, look into who collected the big bucks when Fina was bought out (perhaps a Liberal Cabinet minister or two), Tudeau's lavish patronage and jobs-pour-les-gars efforts and so on.
Mulroney got elected and guess what, it all went quiet on the investigation & public inquiry front. Then were were treated to Mulroney's patronage and worse - eg., the Airbus deal.
Then Chretien came along. I didn't vote for him but thought he might have an interest in such stuff. Nope, no way. The Liberals simply screwed up on Airbus and cost the taxpayers even more dough. Then there was Shawinigate and the construction of his modest little summer place. Let's see, if I cut you a really good deal ($$$) on constructing the necessary security stuff, perhaps I might get a deal on my personal residence, mightn't I?
Martin couldn't really blow the whistle on Chretien and was forced by other factors to deal with Adscam.
Now Harper is on the scene and pleased to be seen publicly glad-handing with Mulroney. Think Airbus might be back on the agenda, think again.
And so it goes. I'd reread Simpson's "Spoils of Power" but it'd be too depressing.
And let's not forget the CF-18 affair - one of the biggest charges against Mulroney as far as I'm concerned.
slightly off topic:
hey Andrew are you thinking up ingenious arguments to somehow blame the BABE (Biggest Alberta Budget Ever - i decided to not add the word "provincial" because then it wouldn't be a catchy acronym) on the federal Conservatives? such as something along the lines of... "Ed Stelmach wouldn't have tabled such a budget if Stephen Harper hadn't done it first"?
just wondering.
(don't get me wrong though - ever since Albertans elected Ed Stelmach we should've been asking serious questions about where economic conservatism would go from that point on - so there are legitimate issues, but i can't pass up this opportunity to poke a yoink at Andrew Coyne)
"If AC, Potter and Wells are going to complain about anonymous posts, then why doesn't AC remove that option??"
Because that would put an end to the celebrities that keep stopping in.
Ace: I would be most interested if you could post a link demonstrating that Mulroney was "found innocent" in the Schrieber matter.
Happy hunting.
Andrew Potter: brilliant analogy!
KRB: For what it's worth, this Liberal agrees with you about the many accomplishments of the Mulroney government (and I would guess that Coyne does too). But that doesn't excuse Mulroo in the Schreiber matter -- just as the many accomplishments of the Chretien government don't excuse the sponsorship scandal.