THELIBERAL Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 Why do they bring this up now? The motif they are accusing her of IS NOW irrevelent because she changed parties!!! These Conservatives love sleaze. If they were as good at selling their platform policies they might gain more seats! Canadians are going to get tired of these sleazy attempts of character assination! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/ Belinda Stronach gave $100,000 to her opponentBy BRIAN LAGHI Tuesday, June 7, 2005 Updated at 3:22 AM EDT From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Ottawa — Former Conservative leadership candidate Belinda Stronach donated $100,000 to help pay off the campaign debt of third-place finisher Tony Clement, a move that has raised questions among Tories over whether she was trying to buy Mr. Clement's future loyalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 I really didn't understand the point of this story. Belinda gave money to a tory politician. So what? Is this a story about her generousity or wealth? Was it not a legal donation? What was the point here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 I really didn't understand the point of this story. Belinda gave money to a tory politician. So what? Is this a story about her generousity or wealth? Was it not a legal donation? What was the point here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Isn't THELIBERAL one of those trolls Greg is complaining about us feeding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 I really didn't understand the point of this story. Belinda gave money to a tory politician. So what? Is this a story about her generousity or wealth? Was it not a legal donation? What was the point here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Isn't THELIBERAL one of those trolls Greg is complaining about us feeding? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How would I know? TheLiberal is posting here, so I'm assuming she's welcome here. As for 'trolling', in my opinion a troll is merely an expression of opinion that pisses someone else off. So, trolling is more a matter of the audience's petulance than the alleged troller's nefariousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 I really didn't understand the point of this story. Belinda gave money to a tory politician. So what? Is this a story about her generousity or wealth? Was it not a legal donation? What was the point here? Really, Sweal. There's a long list of situations when generousity is not appropriate, and a lot of them happen to be within the sphere of politics. The question being posed here is whether giving money to a potential leadership rival is one of those situations. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 TheLiberal makes a decent point Argus... Obviously the Conservatives are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and attempt to further denegrate Stronach and her decision to leave. The campaign donation is a non issue being made into something... like TheLiberal says, even if it were true.. what difference does it make now and what need to trot it out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 TheLiberal makes a decent point Argus... Obviously the Conservatives are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and attempt to further denegrate Stronach and her decision to leave. The campaign donation is a non issue being made into something... like TheLiberal says, even if it were true.. what difference does it make now and what need to trot it out? What difference does it make now? Why mention it now? Because Belinda.ca's character has been a hotly debated subject since her defection. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 I really didn't understand the point of this story. Belinda gave money to a tory politician. So what? Is this a story about her generousity or wealth? Was it not a legal donation? What was the point here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really, Sweal. There's a long list of situations when generousity is not appropriate, and a lot of them happen to be within the sphere of politics. The question being posed here is whether giving money to a potential leadership rival is one of those situations. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Even if this is what she intended to do, I see nothing wrong with buying off the opposition if there is no principle in place against it. If we want to examine what this means for someone's sense of purpose or integrity, probably it is more relevant to reflect on what it means about Tony Clement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 TheLiberal makes a decent point Argus... Obviously the Conservatives are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and attempt to further denegrate Stronach and her decision to leave. The campaign donation is a non issue being made into something... like TheLiberal says, even if it were true.. what difference does it make now and what need to trot it out? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What difference does it make now? Why mention it now? Because Belinda.ca's character has been a hotly debated subject since her defection. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe, but in what possible way does this reflect on her character? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 TheLiberal makes a decent point Argus... Obviously the Conservatives are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and attempt to further denegrate Stronach and her decision to leave. The campaign donation is a non issue being made into something... like TheLiberal says, even if it were true.. what difference does it make now and what need to trot it out? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What difference does it make now? Why mention it now? Because Belinda.ca's character has been a hotly debated subject since her defection. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe, but in what possible way does this reflect on her character? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> better asked How does this reflect poorly on her character? from what I have been able to read on the subject it shows her in a positive light. Perhaps they are asserting that she isn't enough of a jerk to be a Conservative? Seems to me it proves her as someone who cares about others, surely a Liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 better asked How does this reflect poorly on her character? from what I have been able to read on the subject it shows her in a positive light. Perhaps they are asserting that she isn't enough of a jerk to be a Conservative? Seems to me it proves her as someone who cares about others, surely a Liberal. If Conservatives are jerks, I guess Liberals are either naive enough to believe that extravagant gifts in Ottawa come with no strings attached, or jaded enough to not even care. I'm sure there's probably an H.L. Mencken quip that would be perfect for the situation, but I'm to lazy to go find it. Maybe, but in what possible way does this reflect on her character? If she'd used her vast personal wealth to purchase political support from Clement, is that something that you'd admire? Doesn't sound like a very small-L liberal thing to me. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 Maybe, but in what possible way does this reflect on her character? If she'd used her vast personal wealth to purchase political support from Clement, is that something that you'd admire? Doesn't sound like a very small-L liberal thing to me. Do you mean corrupting a public official? That's differnt than wat we have here. Clement is a private citizen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 Maybe, but in what possible way does this reflect on her character? If she'd used her vast personal wealth to purchase political support from Clement, is that something that you'd admire? Doesn't sound like a very small-L liberal thing to me. Do you mean corrupting a public official? That's differnt than wat we have here. Clement is a private citizen. That's a dodge. That wasn't what I asked. (edit: and if you're wondering why people think that you're an unpaid publicist for the Liberals, this sort of thing might be what's adding to the impression.) Yes, I'm aware that offering private citizens money to obtain desired behavior isn't a *crime*, but the question wasn't whether Belinda.ca has committed an offense, it was "in what possible way does this reflect on her character?" You're aware that there's lots of things that are not illegal yet still don't reflect well on a person. How comfortable are you with the idea that someone could essentially buy the leadership of one of our 3 major parties? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 I'm aware that offering private citizens money to obtain desired behavior isn't a *crime*, but the question wasn't whether Belinda.ca has committed an offense, it was "in what possible way does this reflect on her character?"You're aware that there's lots of things that are not illegal yet still don't reflect well on a person. Even if this was purely to buy off Clement from pursuing the leadership, I don't uderstand what deficency of character it represents. How comfortable are you with the idea that someone could essentially buy the leadership of one of our 3 major parties? How comfortable am I with reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 I'm aware that offering private citizens money to obtain desired behavior isn't a *crime*, but the question wasn't whether Belinda.ca has committed an offense, it was "in what possible way does this reflect on her character?"You're aware that there's lots of things that are not illegal yet still don't reflect well on a person. Even if this was purely to buy off Clement from pursuing the leadership, I don't uderstand what deficency of character it represents. *If* it was to buy off Clement from pursuing the leadership, I don't think it's a very good sign. I think a more noble person would prefer to defeat a rival with words and ideas, not by writing a cheque. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 I'm aware that offering private citizens money to obtain desired behavior isn't a *crime*, but the question wasn't whether Belinda.ca has committed an offense, it was "in what possible way does this reflect on her character?"You're aware that there's lots of things that are not illegal yet still don't reflect well on a person. Even if this was purely to buy off Clement from pursuing the leadership, I don't uderstand what deficency of character it represents. *If* it was to buy off Clement from pursuing the leadership, I don't think it's a very good sign. I think a more noble person would prefer to defeat a rival with words and ideas, not by writing a cheque. I think that's a reasonable criticism. I notice something like this happens often in public discourse -- Overstated arguments can obscure related but reasonable ones. Suggestions that Belinda.ca's move was corrupt obscured the fact that it was unflattering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 From the article at the start of this thread: The $100,000 donation will be revealed in a list of campaign spending on the leadership soon to be released by the party. Sources said Mr. Harper's team also donated $10,000 to Mr. Clement in the aftermath of the campaign, which took place in early 2004. Mr. Clement confirmed the donation yesterday, but said there was no effort on Ms. Stronach's part to purchase his loyalty. "If that was her intention, I can tell you that no amount of money can buy me," he said. Mr. Clement racked up a debt of $470,000 during the campaign. "If that was the intention, I don't think that would have been successful." So, Harper gave $10,000 and Stronach gave $100,000. IMHO, Clement strikes me as an earnest politician. It is too bad he didn't make it into the House. This kind of thing happens within parties. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THELIBERAL Posted June 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 RE::What difference does it make now? Why mention it now? Because Belinda.ca's character has been a hotly debated subject since her defection. KEY WORD ( since her defection) she was great before the defection in the Conservative eyes! Oh how they eat their own EH? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mona Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 better asked How does this reflect poorly on her character? from what I have been able to read on the subject it shows her in a positive light. Perhaps they are asserting that she isn't enough of a jerk to be a Conservative? Here Here!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Oh how they eat their own EH? She is yours now, enjoy! Trust is a valuable thing and who would trust her now. Money yes, political capital none. I will miss the martini parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 Shouldn't the Conservatives just let this die? They have gained nothing from beating the rented mule, in fact I believe this has all actually hurt them badly.... why carry on? You would think a strong leader would have nipped this when it started to go south. This only serves (both the attacks trying to catch her off her guard and the Law Society ploy) to make the Conservatives look even more petty in my view. Stronach's first appearance at committee came as Conservative MP John Reynolds (West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country) asked the Law Society of Upper Canada to probe former Ontario premier David Peterson for violating the group's professional conduct rules. Reynolds says that Peterson, a lawyer, may have been involved in offering Stronach a cabinet post in return for her switching parties last month. It was a discussion with Peterson that Stronach says prompted her to leave the Conservative ranks last month. Peterson, who was the province's Liberal premier from 1985 to 1990, made the initial calls to the Prime Minister's Office that resulted in Stronach's crossing the floor and becoming a Liberal cabinet minister. Reynolds launched similar complaints yesterday against Tim Murphy, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, accusing them of offering Tory MPs Gurmant Grewal and his wife Nina certain positions in return for supporting the Liberal government. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350116467 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 This Law Society complaining is nothing but a cheapshot. Meanwhile the Tories still need to answer: Why did they only partially release the Grewal tapes and withhold the rest for nearly two weeks? Who had the tapes during that time and what did they do with them? When did the tory leadership know that the tapes were questionable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 The rot goes deeper than just Harper who seems to have lost control of his boys. The Law Society has nothing to investigate and Reynolds succeeds only in making his party look more and more desperate and incompetent. Peterson had no cabinet post to offer so what is the beef? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have forgotten that they should be offering Canadians a progressive agenda for positive change. Both appear very dirty. I don't blame Canadians for being so cynical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THELIBERAL Posted June 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 TheLiberal makes a decent point Argus... Obviously the Conservatives are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and attempt to further denegrate Stronach and her decision to leave. The campaign donation is a non issue being made into something... like TheLiberal says, even if it were true.. what difference does it make now and what need to trot it out? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do believe shakeyhands got the point. Why are the rest confused? Hey shakeyhands do you sometimes feel you've stumbled into a Conservative caucus meeting!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.