Nigel Wright.

[Topaz]

The following link talks about Wright and where he is and what he's doing now. Wright does seems like a very likeable guy by this article. It also says that Wright wouldn't lie to police but then he wouldn't say anything to harm Harper. I don't see how he couldn't IF, Harper actually did know, if he doesn't lie. He also could go to jail and that may change his mind, only Wright has the answers needed for Canadians. http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/4190228-nigel-wright-supporters-begin-to-break-silence/

[Smallc]

So...what if Harper isn't lying?

[Keepitsimple]

In their zeal to link anything bad to the PM, the media and opposition are the ones who have demonized Wright to get at Harper. Wright has admitted that he alone made the decision to pay Duffy's expenses - but that's not what the media and opposition wanted to hear. They needed a conspiracy. They've turned what was an error in judgement by a well-meaning Wright into a mass conspiracy. Harper protected Wright for as long as he could but in the face of withering accusations - egged on by the media, Harper had to reiterate that what Wright did was wrong. It seems much more likely that they are both telling the truth - rather than both are lying. They are both smart enough not to fabricate a lie - never mind trying to coordinate two of them.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[Topaz]

You what to know why Harper is not creditable...Cadman. He tried bribing before, and should have be bounce out of office and sinc ethem just look at all the scam and scheme they have done. http://canadianawareness.org/2012/03/solid-evidence-from-2006-shows-that-stephen-harper-is-illegally-in-power/%C2'>

Edited November 5, 2013 by Topaz

[Keepitsimple]

Pretty lame Topaz - Harper swore under oath that he authorized the party members to approach Cadman to assure him his campaign expenses would be covered but knew nothing of the insurance policy. If you think he's lying - why would Cadman's wife Dona run successfully for the Conservatives? Here's what Dona said at the time.....and yet somehow, a thousand miles away, you know better than she does - and this is why he's not credible?

In March 2008, Cadman herself stated publicly she believed Harper. According to her, Harper "looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer. I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes."^[4]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dona_Cadman

Edited November 5, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[GostHacked]

Pretty lame Topaz - Harper swore under oath that he authorized the party members to approach Cadman to assure him his campaign expenses would be covered but knew nothing of the insurance policy. If you think he's lying - why would Cadman's wife Dona run successfully for the Conservatives? Here's what Dona said at the time.....and yet somehow, a thousand miles away, you know better than she does - and this is why he's not credible?

Politicians are professional liars. Even the best of them can fake being honest with that look in their eyes. If you are a politician, chances are you lied during your career. Some lies are just worse than others.

[Keepitsimple]

Politicians are professional liars. Even the best of them can fake being honest with that look in their eyes. If you are a politician, chances are you lied during your career. Some lies are just worse than others.

And that's why some people will never be satisfied with the truth - whatever that may be. While politicians break campaign promises all the time to one degree or another - and are called liars, it is suicide to concoct an outright lie to cover something up.

[DFCaper]

So...what if Harper isn't lying?

It shows to me one of the following

1) He doesn't have proper control of the PMO

or

2) He has instilled a culture in the PMO that they can do such activities, as long as it doesn't stick to him

So either a whole bunch more of firings are needed or he is still responsible

[Keepitsimple]

It shows to me one of the following

1) He doesn't have proper control of the PMO

or

2) He has instilled a culture in the PMO that they can do such activities, as long as it doesn't stick to him

So either a whole bunch more of firings are needed or he is still responsible

Or 3) - It tells you how easy it can be - even for someone as widely acknowledged as being a man of total integity like Nigel Wright - to get tripped up by one error in judgement.

[Mighty AC]

So...what if Harper isn't lying?

He has already lied about his involvement in conversations with Duffy and the Wright firing/resignation.

[Smallc]

Calling the firing a resignation wasn't really a lie, it's a pretty common practice. Nothing has actually implicated him of any wrongdoing.

[cybercoma]

Calling the firing a resignation wasn't really a lie, it's a pretty common practice. Nothing has actually implicated him of any wrongdoing.

Read Margaret Wente's commentary about Harper. Harper appointed these Senators. Their expenses were approved. Nigel Wright footed the bill to make the scandal go away. The Conservative Party paid the lawyer fees. The PMO is all over this thing from start to finish and Harper is the head of that office. He's the leader of the party and he's the one that appointed these Senators. If he's not responsible for this, he's not responsible for anything.

[Smallc]

He is responsible for it, but I don't think he knew about the $90,000 cheque. He appointed incompetent people that may very well be criminals, and he should wear that, but I don't think that he should wear the cheque, because to me, it seems like something he never would have signed off on.

[cybercoma]

It was a political move to make the mess "go away." I would be very surprised if Harper didn't approve it, if not give Wright the discretion to "just make this go away."

[Smallc]

I don't think Harper would been able to put the blame on Wright if he did know...he wouldn't risk it.

[BubberMiley]

In their zeal to link anything bad to the PM, the media and opposition are the ones who have demonized Wright to get at Harper.

Even after the Ford fiasco, you're still using the same talking points that were used then?

[Sheogorath_The_Mad]

So...what if Harper isn't lying?

That would be a problem as I'd imagine competence might be something the electorate looks for in a party's leader.

[Sheogorath_The_Mad]

Even after the Ford fiasco, you're still using the same talking points that were used then?

They're still using those talking points when it comes to crackhead Ford. The response of 'conservatives' to both the Ford crack fiasco and Harper's senate scandal really have shown the sad state of conservatism in this country.

[Smallc]

That would be a problem as I'd imagine competence might be something the electorate looks for in a party's leader.

I really don't think he's lying about the cheque...I really think he appoints some terrible people.

[Topaz]

Harper, himself could end all this by going before a committee under oath and saying what he's been saying then Canadians would be more apt to believe him. In the House MP's can say anything and get away with it. Lets remember, Baird himself said, when there is a problem in a ministry it is up to the minister to take the questions not the workers. So let them put their accountability, were their mouths are and have Harper answer for his office. Harper problems are just starting.

[cybercoma]

Harper testifying under oath would be just like Chrétien doing it. Perhaps we can see Harper's golf balls too.

[hitops]

That would be a problem as I'd imagine competence might be something the electorate looks for in a party's leader.

You'd be wrong. Most voters have no way to assess 'competence', they simply look at their own circumstances and if things seem ok, they normally restore the incumbents. If the economy is doing badly, they kick them out. The vast majority of people have no idea how specific policies affect them, since most policies have a delayed effect.

The folks who are loud on here, believe that their particular pet issue or personal dislike of someone is relevant to how voters might perceive that person or party. It is not. None of the recent CPC issues and 'scandals' really fundamentally have any practical impact on anyone beyond the people directly involved, and will not matter at election time, unless the personal fortunes of voters have taken a turn for the worse.

Edited November 6, 2013 by hitops

[Keepitsimple]

Harper, himself could end all this by going before a committee under oath and saying what he's been saying then Canadians would be more apt to believe him. In the House MP's can say anything and get away with it. Lets remember, Baird himself said, when there is a problem in a ministry it is up to the minister to take the questions not the workers. So let them put their accountability, were their mouths are and have Harper answer for his office. Harper problems are just starting.

Yet you yourself used the "Cadman affair" as an example of why you don't believe Harper - even though he swore under oath that he knew nothing of the insurance policy that was offered to Cadman.

[Topaz]

Yet you yourself used the "Cadman affair" as an example of why you don't believe Harper - even though he swore under oath that he knew nothing of the insurance policy that was offered to Cadman.

Well, I guess if you knew there was no way anyone could prove different because only a select few knew and they worked for you than any PM could lie.

[carepov]

You'd be wrong. Most voters have no way to assess 'competence', they simply look at their own circumstances and if things seem ok, they normally restore the incumbents. If the economy is doing badly, they kick them out. The vast majority of people have no idea how specific policies affect them, since most policies have a delayed effect.

The folks who are loud on here, believe that their particular pet issue or personal dislike of someone is relevant to how voters might perceive that person or party. It is not. None of the recent CPC issues and 'scandals' really fundamentally have any practical impact on anyone beyond the people directly involved, and will not matter at election time, unless the personal fortunes of voters have taken a turn for the worse.

I agree with your views. However, the 2006 election does not fit. How did Martin's Liberals loose in 2006?