Man up


Tom Zytaruk on the demise of the Prime Minister’s lawsuit.

“I’m not holding my breath, but I would like to see Stephen Harper, James Moore and some other individuals man up and apologize.”


Man up

  1. The so-called Cadman affair is so much tripe. Let’s move on already. The Liberals should let that poor man rest in peace. Paul Martin showed such poor judgment in signing the preface to this book. Stephane Dion also showed bad judgment in pursuing this nonsense. Hopefully this will be the end of the matter and we can all move on already.

    • [ sotto voce ] …it’s on the tape Jarrid…it’s on the tape man…

    • the PM’s willingness to smear for personal gain and incapacity to admit error, let alone apologize where appropriate, speaks to a lack of character.

      • And to crassly offer money in exchange for votes in the House of commons. that’s pretty bad too.

  2. I really do beleive that under Ignatieff the Liberals are lifting their game and leaving the mud-raking behind.

    Here’s hoping. Canadians want their politicians to resolve the problems of the nation and expect a certain amount of cooperation between the parties. Except for some hyper-partisans on all sides, that seems to be happening more and more, especially with the Cons and the Libs. That is what I take out of this settled lawsuit. Not the negative stuff that I’m reading here on Blog Central. You know folks sometimes you just have to let go, let bygones be bygones.

    Bravo to the Conservatives and the Liberals for burying the hatchet on this matter.

    • Fine. Good point. All politicians get down to work and leave this ridiculous sniping at each other at the door.

      Now, if Harper would please apologise to the journalist for accusing him of doctoring the tape. That has nothing to do with politics, Jarrid.

  3. No apology necessary for publicly accusing a husband, father, and sitting PM of committing a very serious criminal offence.

    That would require balance, objectivity, and a modicum of decency devoid of partisanship.

    In other words that which is sorrily lacking from today’s media.

    • I’m still not sure what was meant by financial considerations.

      • His job – had he voted against the government, he would have lost his income. That is not insignificant for someone battling cancer. Maybe his pension. Maybe his lottery ticket. Who knows.

    • not it doesn’t Kody. the need to apologize to SH was handled in negotiations. clearly he thinks there was no need to apologize to him.

      • Don’t use logic on kody, it voids his warranty.

        • shit, sorry about that kc.

    • I didn’t realize Zytaruk was married, or had children. And I can’t imagine why you think this journalist is a ‘sitting PM’. He has a ride-on lawn mower?

  4. So the cost of recovering his good name was a wink and a nod in private? That doesn’t say much for a guy who was accused of knowing about an alleged bribe of an elected official, nevermind one who was dying…
    Viva le noir!

    • “a wink and a nod”?

      I understand that most here desperately here want to believe that’s all Harper received.

      The notion that the finanically ailing Liberals had to dole out some of its scarce resources to their political enemy (who is already flush with cash) may be too much to handle.

      This is an interesting Rorschach.

      There’s a complete factual void as to what was paid, and the partisan liberals here proudly taunt that it was a

      “wink and a nod”.

      Imagine the outrage here, if I did the same thing, and proudly taunted that the Liberals “must have paid Harper upwards of millions”.

      Imagine the names Paul Wells would call me in that scenario.

      Yes indeed, this HAS been an interesting excercise, on a number of levels.

  5. There still seems to be the not insignificant criminal matter of whether or not a sitting MP (Cadman) was offered a bribe (by whatever definition) for his vote.

    • Yes, it’s true, a sitting MP (Stronach) was unquestionably given a bribe (a cabinet seat) for her vote. And nothing has been done.

      There is another circumstantial matter, in which a sitting MP (Cadman) was alleged (based on the vague contents of an audio tape describing “financial considerations”) to have offered a bribe (nobody knows what that bribe actually was, since there is no evidence) for a vote (which ultimately went against the Conservatives, suggesting there was no bribe at all).

      • We can all drop the “alleged” and just say Harper knew of Conservative bribery. What’s Harper going to do? Sue us?

        • No, but it remains “alleged” because it is an accusation and nothing more, an accusation that is almost certainly untrue. The “alleged” label acknowledges the existence of partisan Liberals who refuse to smell the coffee.

      • I love how Conservatives all of a sudden become concerned about evidence.

        Seriously, you liars really need to stop talking so much if you don’t really have anything new to say.

        • I love how frustrated left wing nuts have nothing better to offer than allegations based upon nothing of any relevance and when they think it is … invariably it always turns out to be nothing especially situations like this that are completely irrelevant have no foundation as any real eveidence which if it ever was goes directly against the record of the main party involved. This only displays the lengths to which some peoples prejudice results in the inevitable insult! The last refuge of the intellectually challenged : You are a Liar bla bla bla and let’s not forget people – it’s on the tape boss .. the tape boss .. and yet most people who listen to it realize that there is nothing there folks what was talked about has been explained in a official transcript the main questions have been asked and answered and the only outstanding issue are the hurt feelings of some wannabee author journalist who more than likely has already made a nice little sum in book sales and let’s not forget the invariably boring and definitely trite public speeches about more jestsam and flotsam next will be a book a about Bernier it would certainly have a better photo layout. Quite frankly = boring! If you really want to see the affect of this sort of waste of time see Iggy – I don’t see him continuing the discussion in the house and he could if he wanted after in the house he has privilege even from a confidentiality agreement. Nope … sorry folks end result = out of the pool – next!

          • wayne
            Just say: “no it isn’t true”! Or chant, liars all liars unti yr booboo goes away.

          • I love how some comments typographically mirror the jumble of half-baked thoughts and unstructured stream of consciousness their content represents.

      • sf
        All that’s really happened is that SH has gotten away with saying, ” there’s no evidence that will stand up in a courtroom ,unless you can bring Chuck back let’s agree to let the lawers go home”. Case not proven! If you choose to see that as innocent of all wrong doing, well all i can say is: i just thought i saw santy, i knew if i believed hard enough i coud make it so!

        • I think you have become accused who are the defendants in the case, or maybe you did not know in the first place. The Liberals are the defendants.

          And yes, there is nothing criminal about settling a case out of court. Are you asking whether I think the Liberals are indeed innocent? That’s a tough question, it’s debatable whether or not they crossed the boundary of fair comment into libel.

          • Yeah the dust of scandal was getting into my eyes a little there. However if yr going to take refuge in sophistry then be my guest.

  6. So, it will always haunt Harper – he did not clear him name (probably couldn’t win the legal case). People will always wonder and doubt Harper.

    • No, this is another one of those times when Liberals are completely out-of-touch with common opinion. Average people do not care about this in the slightest. Wake up and smell the coffee.

      • Average people do not care…

        I’m sure you intended to say “below-average people,” which is accurate.

        • I was verging on caring, but then I got distracted by beer and popcorn…

    • so what else is new all sorts of people have always vented their thoughts about Stevie boy how many times have you heard the most ridiculous of claims and labels – come to think of it just like Trudeau, Chretien and Mulroney they all had legions of naysayers and accusers of being in league with the devil hisself. yet for some strange reason Steve still like the previous keep getting elected. In our system there is only one way that the issue is resolved and that’s the bum in the seat. If after an election your bum is in the seat you get to eat the pudding. and as well all know the proof is in the eating of the pudding.

      • wayne
        Yr version of realpoliic is probably accurate. But each one of these “scandals” is yet another brick in the wall. One day that indifferent public will say, i think it’sabout time to call in the demo boys!

      • Yabbut, only Mulroney has had to show up in inquiry and possibly, and then Harper was under the gun: show up in court or drop the case.

        Stephen Harper would have been the first Prime Minister of Canada to go to court and testiify.

        Dropped his own case rather than defend himself in a court of law.

        Harper bailed on his own case of ‘misappropriation of personality’.

    • You don’t think Canadians care about whether their Prime Minister committed perjury or not? That’s completely unimportant?

      • If he did commit some wacky crime (perjury? what’s next? Murder?), they would care. When they know he did not, they do not care about wild accusations.

        • I love how you claim to know what other people think all the time.

          You do know that borders on insanity, I hope.

        • Don’t let the facts stand in the way of your assertions.

      • Things to be skeptical about: UFOs, little green men, ghosts, and Liberal political conspiracies.

        • Can anyone play? i have a couple.
          fixed election dates.
          Consevative budgets

  7. You all may have heard about the man who decapitated a passenger on a greyhound bus.

    In front of dozens, he pulled out a knife and cut a guy’s head off. Then when the police arrived he brandished the knife at them. There were dozens of witnesses. The evidence was overwhelming, and he was charged immidiately.

    Did you notice how the press, even in that circumstance, didn’t call the guy the “killer” but the “alleged killer.”

    They do so for a simple reason. Saying someone committed a serious crime, in unequivocal terms, is a serious matter in our society. Even when the evidence is overwhelming, the person has been charged, and the police are convinced of a crime, responsible people take care not to say definitively a crime was committed.

    Now take the Liberal party’s unequivocal statements about Harper bribing. Not in the context of overwhelming evidence. Not after charges have been laid, and an investigation complete.

    It was in the precise opposite scenario. Not only was there a complete abscence of evidence showing Harper bribed Cadman, in was in circumstances where there couldn’t possibly be such evidence.

    Had it been Harper making the allegations of bribery, this would be the scandal of the century. But it was the desperate Liberals, and so their water carriers in the press, did not even think twice about the propriety of making such public statements.

    Much like the conduct directe toward me here, it was Harper daring to speak out against such wrongdoing directed at him that was viewed as outrageous.

    Conservatives are expected to take malicious allegations. The reason being, many on the left ascribe malice to those who hold conservavtive views. And doubly so against a successful conservative leader.

    Actual evidence of malice is merely an afterthought, if thought of at all.

    And so we hear commenters here saying “I wouldn’t put anything past Harper.” The translation being: “I don’t need actual evidence to know he’s done wrong.”

    Of course not. He’s done wrong, by simply being a conservative.

    • Today’s tolerant progressive left.

      [The afformentioned was made with full knowelge that I may, and most probably will, recieve general condemnation, and be the subject of ridicule, anger, and of course name calling including at the hands of Paul (Kody is a ‘cry baby) Wells.]

      • You do realize that being called an idiot when you are, in fact, an idiot isn’t name calling.
        It’s simply an expression of fact.

        • Do you also realize that every time you bring up the fact that Wells called you a crybaby, you come across like a crybaby?
          Or that, when you’re the first to respond to your own post, you are, in effect, talking to yourself?

          Today’s well-adjusted, sensible right.

          • CWE
            Shhh! Let him talk to himself. He might come to realize just what a pain in the ass he really is!

          • There are so many things to appreciate about kody’s schtick, but the best is that, in rebuking him, PW said something like, “I know kody is going to kick and scream and squeal about my calling him a cry baby, but he’s a cry baby, so what can you do?” OWTTE.

            And now that prophecy has been amply fulfilled.

            Today’s well-adjusted, sensible right.

          • JM
            Hmmm! It’s a guilty pleasure taunting a crybaby, until you realize that he is in fact a crybaby.

    • And yet, Harper dropped his lawsuit without so much as requiring the Liberals to say anything they said or wrote was misleading.

      Harper knew of Conservative bribery. It just hangs out there. Might not have even noticed it except that Harper said it was going to be the biggest mistake in court of Dion’s life. That caught our attention.

      Harper knew of Conservative bribery. Lawsuit dropped. No explanation. Nothing. Did he know or not? We know that he said he was going to prove it false, but then he gave up. Decided it was too much trouble or expense or something or other to prove that he wasn’t involved in bribery. If that’s too much trouble for Harper, I’m sure he’ll understand if we don’t go to the trouble of adding alleged all the time.

      • Catherine: “And yet, Harper dropped his lawsuit without so much as requiring the Liberals to say anything they said or wrote was misleading.”

        Precisely. By dropping the lawsuit now, Harper has simply made it seem more plausible that he did know about the alleged ‘offer’, otherwise he would be doing everything he could to clear his name. He should have thought about that before he tried to shut up the Opposition with his lame lawsuit.

        • This is a very gd pt. The libs were the defendants here, SH brought the libel action, he claimed the damage to his reputation. Logically the libs would have to apologize even if the case was unproven. They have not ergo, the liberal libel still stands, unproven it may be but they haven’t had to retract it in anyway. Obviously they got something in return for confidentiallity. Anyone care to refute this logically. Kody, that means not you!

          • As we don’t know what the terms were, we’ll never know. It’s a confidential, without prejudice settlement.

            I suggest you take the lead from the Liberal party itself,

            which is by no means strutting around declaring victory.

          • what no blast from Kody the nemesis of TPL? There’s no answer is there except for the last refuge of: it’s confidential. No victory maybe kody but then again no restoration of Harper’s good name[ gag! ]

          • It could simply be a matter of the conservatives wanting to go home and the Liberals letting them. if one side wants to give up completely, it can look kind of silly for the other side to keep pursuing (yeah, there’s costs involved, but it can take more time and money just to get back what you’ve already spent. the Liberal lawyers might also have not done too much working, suspecting the Conservatives would eventually give up).

          • It could be……….

            Yes I could.

            Of course it could also be the Liberals paying out of their scarce resources the cool sum of $1 million dollars, plus legal fees.


            a confidential settlement is an interesting political Rorschach test isn’t it?

            We definitely know what Paul Wells sees in that settlement ink blot.

          • Except that my guess was a reasonable extrapolation from what is known, and yours was hogwash.

          • kody dips into the psychoanalytic vocabulary to explain people’s reactions to politics.

            Remarkable. Just remarkable.

  8. Kody knocks it out of the park again.

    Hey Liberal partisans, Iggy has changed the channel, you should follow your leader who looks intent on restoring credibility back to the Liberal Party which has frittered away since December 2003 first with Mr. Dithers and then Mr. Hopeless Case. You finally have a fellow who is trying to earn Canadians’ respect instead of indulging in mud-raking and spurious attacks.

    Liblogs and the left-wing media bloggers at Blog Central should follow suit or else be prepared to spend a fair bit of time in the political wilderness with their favoured party stuck in also-ran status.

    What is it with the negativism of Liblogs and lately Blog Central?

    Perhaps a case of late-winter blues setting in? My we’re a cranky bunch.

    • you should follow your leader

      Thanks for the advice, but as everyone knows, non-Conservative tend to think for themselves.

      Are you familiar with Dunning-Kruger by the way? You’re presenting a fascinating case study for it.

      • … or don’t follow Iggy and continue to drift in the political hinterland.

        The Liberals have quickly adopted the opposition mentality. Who’d a thunk.

        Ordinary Canadians don’t like whiners, and the Liberals are actually out-whining the NDP these days, which is quite an accomplishment.

        • Do you even know, yourself, what you’re talking about now, or have you gone completely into a fugue state, like your pal Kody?

      • Is that where afforementioning is considered a sign of paranoid anti-reality denial syndrome exasperated by obsessive proggessive left paranoia

  9. I would like to see Tom Zytaruk stop exploiting Chuck Cadman.

    • well it seems to have the work he did seems to have the blessing of Chuck’s family…. so frankly, who cares what you would like.

    • I would like to see the conservative stop exploiting Chuck Cadman…. oh wait, they did! They finally dropped their frivolous lawsuit! Thats a good step one, now step two is apologizing to Tom Zytaruk. Something Mr.Cadman’s own daughter is calling for.

  10. Does this mean that tape can now be used without fear of a lawsuit?

    • That does seem to be the case. However, we don’t know what is in the secret agreement and it might contain an agreement that the Liberals do not use the tape.

      • It might contain an agreement that the Liberals pay the conservatives 1.7 million dollars for accusing someone of committing a serious criminal offence when there weren’t even charges laid, let alone a conviction.

        One thing is certain: there’s a reason the Liberals have agreed to keep this mum.

      • One thing is also certain,

        making categorical statements (“that does seem to be the case”) in circumstances where secrecy of terms is mandated, by both parties for their mutual benefit, and the facts are not known or even knowable,

        has a distinctive air of dishonesty and lack of fair play.

        • Kody, I was saying it would seem that we could freely use the tape. Harper dropped his lawsuit which hinged on his statement that the tape was false. So, I assume we are free to use the tape now. Depending on what is in the secret agreement, the Liberals may or may not be able to use the tape.

  11. So Cadman’s wife, daughter and campaign manager all say an offer was made for him to change his vote. Whether “an insurance policy” or “financial considerations” remains a bit fuzzy (except for that accursed tape), but the context of the offer — to change the outcome of a confidence vote — was clear. Harper and his minions deny. Then an interview with Cadman’s widow and daughter add weight to the accusation. The Cons deny some more. Then a tape emerges. And a book.

    Still, neither adman’s widow, daughter nor biographer are ever charged with libel. Only the opposition party faces a charge … for commentary on a website! (It was Harper who brought the matter before the courts — so he was hardly being persecuted, unless he’s a masochist.)

    The Cons spend hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping this matter “before the courts” so no one can comment on it — unless they’re an “anonymous Senior Conservative” speaking to one of our intrepid journalists.

    Then Harper ups the charges to include “misappropriation of likeness” — which was surreal. Harper’s lawyer quits.

    Then the matter is settled — and mind you, only the complainant can settle the matter. Harper had to void his accusation. He had to climb down.

    He had no case and this was just sleazy political gaming.

    Conbots, your chess master is a fraud.

    • And, as we all know,

      the Stronach offer was, with a certainty, much worse.

      1) it involved the promise of a vote, which vote actually affected the outcome of an election
      2) in exchange for a signicant amount of money from the public purse: in the form of a cabinet resources,

      and….most importantly

      3) it was effectuated. It was a completed deal. (Cadman voted with the Libs).

      Even assuming all of the allegations are true, at best it was an attempt.

      So to recap, the Stronach deal was far more significant, far more aggregious, and….here’s the kicker…..it actuallly transpired.

      But, as we’re talking about the Liberals, it’s all good.


      • The Stronach thing is smelly, isn’t it? But Kody, I submit to you that Belinda Stronach wouldn’t have voted with the Conservatives in this case even if she’d still been a Conservative. That is exactly WHY this deal went down. She was going to leave the party, either by jumping ship or by being kicked out for not voting with them. So, why not get some advantage? The rather sleazy thought occurred. The “bribe” wasn’t for a vote in the House. It was for a way to save face. Ergo, not actually a bribe at all. And yes, we DID know Belinda Stronach’s opinion on the vote in question, before hand, and it would have been politically impossible for her to vote with the Conservatives.

        But to take your point to its end, the fact that the Stronach thing actually occurred while the Cadman thing was just an attempt is a reflection of Cadman. A man who refused to be bribed. It does not reflect anything on to the ‘attempters’, well, except possibly poor judgement.

        • I think your Stronach theory is just that, a theory. And in my opinion, it’s baloney. And furthermore, even if she still decided to “get an advantage”, that still amounts to accepting a bribe, regardless of the circumstances.
          A bribe is a bribe is a bribe.

          • You probably don’t want to go that route, sf.. unless you want to explain Emerson to us.

            At least Stronach is on record previously as saying she could not support the budget, and her increasing dissatisfaction with the conservative party in general at the time is known.

            Emerson? Mere days before he was claiming how he and the Liberals would take out the Conservatives like trash.

      • Though I point this out, I wouldn’t want it any other way.

        You see, as a conservative, I prefer that the notion of conservative wrongdoing (the notion that is, as Harper appeared to do nothing wrong whatsoever) as something dramatic, something shocking.

        As opposed to say the Stronach affair, where the world treated that Liberal misdoing as so common place, it was like just another snowflake falling in a winter storm.

        Sure lets keep digging into Mulroney, which involved personal funds, no public ones, and was by mathematical definition, miniscule in terms of scope, breadth and depth of damage to our democracy as compared to Adscam, which scandal the average Liberal brushes aside as “old news” as if it was nothing more than a little dalliance in political never, never land. This notwithstanding that tens of millions of dollars were never accounted for. Our dollars, still in the hands of Liberals.

        As my Liberal freinds would say to this: “yawn”

        • They did it too!
          Kody, meet John Baird.

          BTW, the Stronach situation is interesting Yes, she crossed party lines AFTER saying she’d support the Liberal budget because it was good for her constituents (remember that, Reformers?). Second, she’d have been turfed by Harper for voting her conscience (no small irony there, eh Reformers?).

          But you see, to get the truly tasty irony about this, you must recall that Cadman had ALREADY been turfed from his party by Harper’s pals… that’s why he sat as an independent! So the Stronach comparison is only slightly appropriate. She would be turfed by Harper and if she did what her constituents wanted; Cadman HAD already been.

          Not any of this has much to do with Harper slandering a journalist and a opposition party members (accusing them of lying and doctoring tapes), then filing a lawsuit to this effect, then having it all fall apart as his righteousness ran afoul of the facts.

  12. I thought the Murphy/Grewal tape that gave us an insight how the Libs operate was even more squalid than the Stronach bribe. The msm made that sordid little spectacle into ethics of secretly taping people or downplayed what they were saying, ‘boys will be boys’ don’t you know. Sleazy things happen in Ottawa and we rarely hear about the shenanigans. It’s a shame that most of the msm would rather stay in the loop, instead of printing scoops.

    • Ah, the Murphy/Grewal tape. Which remix did you like best? I preferred the one that samples “Sweet Emotion” and has this terrific bass line. Murphy ends up saying “I . . . am . . . a . . . alien” over and over. Totally legit, if you know what I mean.

      • So I assume you would be equally sanguine about the Cadman tapes if I could be bothered to put them to music, alter a few words and then post it on youtube? The point is, neither Murphy nor Dosanjh ever denied saying the things that were on the tapes and the msm went to bat for the Lib MP and staffer even tho it was apparent those two were offering bribes to cross the floor. The nudge, nudge, wink, wink on the tapes was appalling but libs, and msm, were quick to jump on Grewal or claim that there was nothing amiss with offering inducements.


        If Stronach was going to cross the floor anyways, why were there days of negotiations between Libs and Belinda before she crossed the floor to become cabinet minister? I guess in your view, the quid pro quo was entirely coincidental. That bribery is ok if it’s done to ‘save face’.

        • Moreover,

          to think that her becoming a cabinet minister immediatly thereafter,

          was not the result of a deal, but some coincidence of epic proportions that defy basic notions of logic and probability,

          shows the depths to which the water carriers for the Liberals will choose to ignore reality to justify their woeful means. The ends. It is only the ends that matter.

          • Oh, I was as shocked & appalled by the Stronach defection as anyone.

            The sequel, of course, was an MP named Grewal, sometime advisor to Chiang Kai-shek (or something like that), tape-recording himself like he was in a John le Carré novel and then editing the tapes to concoct an accusation against Murphy and Dosanjh.

            Wow. Just wow.

            So it turns out there were three shady deals going on in that psychotic Parliamentary session: Stronach getting wooed with a cabinet seat, Grewal wearing a wire (and then fabricating evidence of a bribe when it didn’t work out), and finally the Tories trying to buy the vote of a dying man (and then suing to hide the tracks). Seems to me there’s enough disgraceful cloak & dagger stuff going on all round, but it doesn’t make any one of those shady deals (incl. Cadman) less nauseating.

            Today’s well-adjusted, sensible right.

        • jwl, I did start my post with “The Stronach thing is smelly, isn’t it?” if you could read that part also.

          And the reason very simply is that Belinda Stronach is/was an opportunist. Not being a member of the Conservative party anymore doesn’t automatically equal becoming a member of the Liberal party. But hey, its tough to be a leader of a party (and possible Prime Minister) if you don’t have a party to belong to. Mind you, I always liked Belinda Stronach.

          From the Liberal point of view, she WAS a high-profile MP and if elected as a Liberal would have almost certainly gained a cabinet seat. Okay, but for the fact that she wasn’t.

          And the rest is ‘gotcha’ politics. Personally, I think she and the Liberals shouldn’t have done this. I’m not so fond of MPs crossing the floor, at least not to immediately go from one party to another. I do understand an independent MPs life is a lot like a death sentence, so I see how an MP wouldn’t want to stay there forever.

    • I thought the Murphy/Grewal tape that gave us an insight how the Libs operate was even more squalid than the Stronach bribe.

      Obviously, you weren’t paying attention when that event transpired.

      Here’s a refresher

Sign in to comment.