More info. from Harper on Jaffer

[Topaz]

Harper is saying that Jaffer misused his special passport and went to Cuba help them reduce their use of oil. Boy, That there would really get Harper going!! Seriously though, Jaffer seem to dug himself in but not quite sure about his wife unless she guilty by association. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/814900--travers-jaffer-passport-abuse-waved-red-flag-for-harper

[Keepitsimple]

Harper is saying that Jaffer misused his special passport and went to Cuba help them reduce their use of oil. Boy, That there would really get Harper going!! Seriously though, Jaffer seem to dug himself in but not quite sure about his wife unless she guilty by association. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/814900--travers-jaffer-passport-abuse-waved-red-flag-for-harper

If Guergis is totally innocent of any of the accusations, then it's just very unfortunate. But the reality is, you can't have someone in Cabinet - or in the party - that is married to someone who seems to be such a slippery character. It's not fair to Canadians to have to continually speculate whether there are conflicts of interest at play - if not criminal activity.....and of course, the media would never let go of the issue. So out she goes. We do not yet know the extent of misconduct that has transpired.....and perhaps it's best that it remain that way until investigations are completed. One need only look at the media feeding-frenzy that was perpetrated on Michael Bryant in Ontario. He was looked at as a criminal for the past 9 months - only to find out later that he one of a string of victims subject to the perpetrator's violence. With Jaffer and Guergis - there may be a broader story at play that may, or may not - bring one or both into more disrepute. But to avoid them being burned at the stake by the media before facts can be established, the government has decided to withhold some of the further speculative "charges". It's "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

Edited May 27, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[ZenOps]

Uh huh...

So you would blame and partially chastize Nicole for being a bad wife to OJ Simpson then too?

She married the guy - so she should take the lumps. Interesting...

Edited May 27, 2010 by ZenOps

[Molly]

Not at all!

But when evaluating a cabinet minister, or even ones member of parliament, the ideal candidate would not be someone who is demonstrably either a petty shyster or a fool.

[eyeball]

Not at all!

But when evaluating a cabinet minister, or even ones member of parliament, the ideal candidate would not be someone who is demonstrably either a petty shyster or a fool.

You've just about eliminated the whole field.

[Molly]

Oops.

[PIK]

Harper made a move before something more serious could have happened, that is called leadership, something Mr Chretien did not show during all the scandals his people were involve in.I guess that is the reason the left hates him, they would not know leadership if it hit them in the passport.

[Dave_ON]

err what's this Jaffer post number 5? Anyway, even if Geurgis is found to be utterly blameless, save of having terrible taste in husbands, the CPC has out and out stated they wouldn't accept her back.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/26/guergis-caucus.html

[Topaz]

err what's this Jaffer post number 5? Anyway, even if Geurgis is found to be utterly blameless, save of having terrible taste in husbands, the CPC has out and out stated they wouldn't accept her back.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/26/guergis-caucus.html

Speaking of back, Helena was back in the House today and she make a opening statement like the rest of the House.

[madmax]

Jaffer was the golden boy of the Conservative Caucus... Everything was rosy right up till he lost the election. He was slippery before, but there was always the loving Conservatives making excuses for the boy with a Smoking jacket and a bib.

Dumping the clown has taken 10 years to long.

No doubt... Scribblet has been right that Helena is suffering guilty by association and some very bad political decisions and an elitist attitude of entitlement. But thats the entire Conservative Caucus. So... put her back where she belongs.

[kimmy]

When Helena Guergis was accused of shouting at airport staffers, people wanted to see her disciplined and howled that Harper was protecting her.

But now that she's accused of giving a lobbyist inappropriate access to government resources, she's Nicole Simpson and Harper is a woman-hating scumbag for not defending her.

You guys are funny.

-k

[Topaz]

When Helena Guergis was accused of shouting at airport staffers, people wanted to see her disciplined and howled that Harper was protecting her.

But now that she's accused of giving a lobbyist inappropriate access to government resources, she's Nicole Simpson and Harper is a woman-hating scumbag for not defending her.

You guys are funny.

-k

U

Until she is legally charged with something, Harper didn't have to throw her out of the party.

[Born Free]

U

Until she is legally charged with something, Harper didn't have to throw her out of the party.

I agree. She simply should have had her minister post immediately lifted for conduct not becoming a minister.

[YEGmann]

Until she is legally charged with something, Harper didn't have to throw her out of the party.

This is internal party business. This has nothing to do with any legal aspects. If party decides she has to go so be it.

And we have heard the opposition crying bloody murder when there was nothing to charge her "legally".

[kimmy]

Until she is legally charged with something, Harper didn't have to throw her out of the party.

He was under no obligation to keep her on, either.

A party can choose who they wish to be their candidate in any riding. While it's usually decided by voters in the riding association, those choices have been overridden by the party many times in the past.

An MP doesn't have a "right" to be in a particular party. Recall that Carolyn Parrish was removed from the Liberal party for verbally challenging Paul Martin's authority. If I recall, an MP was once kicked out of a national party's caucus for expressing pro-life views.

Bringing disrepute to the party is all the justification they need to remove someone from the party.

-k

[punked]

He was under no obligation to keep her on, either.

A party can choose who they wish to be their candidate in any riding. While it's usually decided by voters in the riding association, those choices have been overridden by the party many times in the past.

An MP doesn't have a "right" to be in a particular party. Recall that Carolyn Parrish was removed from the Liberal party for verbally challenging Paul Martin's authority. If I recall, an MP was once kicked out of a national party's caucus for expressing pro-life views.

Bringing disrepute to the party is all the justification they need to remove someone from the party.

-k

The NDP threw Bev Desjarlais out for voting against gay marriage.

[Molly]

Of course. Parties are completely private entities, each vying for the approval of voters.

Those voters merely find the failure of proportion interesting, and wonder whether the CPC has acted irrationally, or whether there's more of the story to come.

I'm torn, but would have to bet on the latter.