Coyne v. Wells on Helena Guergis and Jean Charest affairs -

Coyne v. Wells on Helena Guergis and Jean Charest affairs

Our Video podcast


Download | Feed | iTunes


Coyne v. Wells on Helena Guergis and Jean Charest affairs

  1. Good discussion. Do either of you think Harper is glad that Guergis is dominating the headlines? Harper didn't have to punt Guergis out of cabinet with no explanation and then leave the opposition and media days to try and figure it all out. Do you think Guergis would have survived if the fireworks at the Afghan detainee hearings weren't going on at the same time? It's a very convenient distraction.

    • I don't think the Afghan detainee issue resonates with many Canadians.

      But drunk driving, snorting coke, speeding, tantrums, faux expense accounts, and influence peddling are titilatting and easy to understand, especially the part about different justice for the elite. The elite whose salaries we pay to legislate the rules they break.

      That resonates! And I think Harper knows that.

      Here in SK, we have a similar provincial Legislature scandal breaking: Serge Le Clerc, an MLA who has done hard time for running drugs, women and gangs in Saskatoon — AND written a book about it (jailhouse conversion=now an evangelist. Local CBC received a brown envelope with tapes, etc, purporting to be him and talking about doing coke and having sex with men. It's extra fun watching Our Little Brad, lap dog to Harper, trying to deal with such sensational stuff.

      • That is largely why I think Harper is letting the charade go on. It's something bright and shiny to distract people. Yes, more people pay attention to the coke and busty hookers but I also think Harper knows most people believe it has more to do with Jaffer and Guergis than the Conservative government so it won't move votes in the long-term. The Afghan detainee issue did move the polls before Christmas and does stick more to the Conservative government as a whole. I can't see why Harper would be that upset that the Guergis sideshow has taken centre stage at this point in time.

        • I think Harper knew that mentioning the serious and credible allegations but saying nothing would provoke questions. I'm not sure he realized his judgement would be part of the criticisms.

          I really don't see him as the brilliant tactician that others do. I think he miscalculated, but I do agree that he's always calculating.

          I don't think he's letting anything go on; I think it's out of control and has a life of its own. His miscalculation may be that he thought he distanced himself but instead is painted with the same brush.

  2. It seems to me that Andrew got it right – did she have any knowledge of Rahim's illegal substance use.

    The fact that this story is preempting all the other news this week seems to suggest that it *is* a matter of public interest – not just a bright and shiny scandal, but the questionable judgement of a Minister and the Prime Minister. That in turn goes to the allegations of influence peddling, criminal involvement, etc.

    • grasping at straws.

  3. Jonathan McKinnell.
    I'm completely pissed!
    What is that? Can you delete it? I deleted my comments while in wordpress. They disappeared. Then they came back cause they populated that Intense Debate profile. I don't want that profile. I already have intensedebate/people/truemuse and I can't get rid of it (though I'd like to).

  4. I think Andrew's Golden Age of when Cabinets were chosen based on their abilities rather than "who & what they represent" is illusory.

    In the 18th century, for instance, in Britain the Ministry was always constructed more with an eye to the factions represented than how purely competent the proposed ministers might be.

    Having said that, that's what makes cabinetmaking so difficult, no? If you want some level of competence AND some representativeness of the country you have to make a lot of tough choices.

  5. I find these podcasts wonderfully soothing and ordinarily I would confine my comments to their content.

    But, Paul, I have noticed that recently you appear to be gazing at your computer monitor like a dewy-eyed maiden who has just seen a strapping young swain stroll into her fairy tale for the very first time.

    It is understandable. Andrew is dreamy …

    though Andrew appears oblivious, you too are adorable … a snuggly little teddy bear, albeit with pointed teeth …

    On with the entertainment, bring me more podcasts … I promise to behave if you do …