The last 72 hours in Guergis


The private investigator tells his side of the story to the CBC and Globe. Mr. Ignatieff questions Mr. Harper’s judgment. Mr. Jaffer will appear before a parliamentary committee on Wednesday. The Hill Times ventures that Ms. Guergis’ political reputation may forever be damaged.


The last 72 hours in Guergis

  1. Rasing basic questions such as judgement after Harper has been in power for years?

    Politial rule of thumb for Iggy, you don't go back to "qualifying" attributes after your opponent has been around in the trenches for years. The public just won't buy it espectially on touchy personal matters such as this where most right thinking Canadians appreciate don't lend themselves to easy answers.

    Iggy now trying to peddle easy answers after the fact? I question Iggy's judgement. (See, much more effective against an newbie who appears reactionary and opportunistic at every turn).

    • So, questioning someone's potential for misjudgement in the future is more politically potent than questioning misjudgment while it's in progress? By this twisted logic, someone who might later shoplift is less trustworthy than someone who has just been caught.

      Or someone who shows a tendency to be "reactionary and opportunistic" in Opposition will be more politically damaged than someone who has made that Standard Operating Procedure in Government for 4 years.

      • No. What I'm saying is that with each passing day Liberals have to sell themselves to Canadians. Attacking the opponent is to be expected as well, but is should be done strategically.

        Rookies flailing about, base their attacks on whatever comes in the door, every moment in time. Yes its easy, but it fails to appreciate the opportunity cost in politics – you only have so much time, so many kicks at the can, so you better choose your points of attack that are most effective, not the most convenient.

        The attacks should also be of the variety that don't make the attacker look petty or opportunisic.

        This one fails on both points. Go after Harper's "judgement" all you like, but there's a significant amount of equity in that department that you have to go up against. He's been around for years, and you're not going to convince the public, now, that he lacks judgement because Iggy says so.

        An attack of convenience. That's all it is. Another fail by the annointed one.

        • Yet it seems lately his judgement has suffered. The way he handled the Guergis problem, his call out on the anthem, his unwarranted proroguing of parliament. Are you saying these problems should be ignored? What, pray tell, would be your strategy for the Liberals (other than them to pack up the party and hand Harper a majority)

          • First of all, not every issue should be regarded as a "scandal". The moral of the story in Chicken Little hasn't expired as far as I know.

            Actually coming out and agreeing with the CPC once and a while, and doing so boldly an unapologitically (particularly to your left wing base) would be good as well. It's about building credibility. Not on all issues of course, but reflexive opposition in not government in waiting stuff.

            Finally, and this is the hard part, start putting together and speaking about policy. Here is where it gets tricky. For the first time in a long time Liberls are straddling a fairly strong united party on the right, that is in power, and a further left party. My theory is he's having difficulty cutting it that thin, without alienating either the right or the left wing of the party. But cut it he must, because the Liberals cannot be a reactionary party. Not if it wants to gain power back.

          • The Liberals have been trying to put forward policy positions, but the Tory spin machine has been distorting them into factually untrue but appealing 30 second soundbites, e.g.:

            1) Ignatieff proposed freezing corporate tax rates – the Tories misrepresented this as a tax HIKE, not a freeze
            2) The Green Shift was proposed as a revenue-neutral shift from income towards carbon taxes – the Tories misrepresented this as a tax HIKE, not a shift
            3) The Liberals have had concerns with mandatory minimums since criminology research suggests they do nothing to deter crime and would fill up prisons at great cost to taxpayers – the Tories ignored the available research and instead suggested the Liberals are "soft on crime"

            Heck, you yourself were guilty of this in trying to suggest the Geneva Conventions didn't forbid torture to non-combatants on Friday (refer back to that conversation to see the exact quote that forbids it – I never did hear your response)

            I ask you, how is policy discussion supposed to take place when policies are not debated on their pros and cons, but rather are distorted so that what ends up in news articles and TV ads completely misrepresents what is actually being proposed?

        • I've seen this comment a million times before.

          Get some new material.

          • You sure showed him!

    • So right, Chut. However, since this isn't the first time that Harper's defence has been "it's a touchy personal matter" ie Maxime, now Helena — nothing to do with leaving sensitive documents at a paramour known to criminal figures, or potentially influence pedalling with possible known criminal elements — I'll have to gauge your "the public just won't buy it" statement with the price of volcanic ash.
      Typical CON squirming at its best.

      • Pooping puffin, blackhumour at food poisioning gate, left documents behind gate….all happened before the last election. The public didn't care a wiff. The CPC gained seates accross the board after all those supposed "scandals", with a policy issue – arts funding in Quebec – being the difference between a large minority and a majority.

        While Harper's team is on the verge of establishing free markets with the EU, as we battle our way out of a recession in a manner that's the envy of the world, you keep telling yourself that Canadians will change horses come next election, because of this.

  2. I initially interpreted the headline to mean "The Final 72 Hours in Guergis" and felt joy and relief.

    Then I realized it only meant "The Most Recent 72 Hours in Guergis" and I felt sad.

  3. I initially interpreted the headline to mean "The Final 72 Hours in Guergis" and felt joy and relief.

    Then I realized it only meant "The Most Recent 72 Hours in Guergis" and I felt sad.

  4. But none of the key elements of the CBC information, or the waste management letter, was in Prime Minister Harper's hands when he expelled Ms. Guergis from his parliamentary caucus.

    The thing that hasn't been really talked about is that by expelling her from caucus, she basically loses protection as a candidate, which means her riding is now open season for a nomination challenge,

    Will she also be banished from wearing the colour blue ?

    • I expect they've already repossessed her supply of giant novelty checks featuring the Conservative logo – she's ruined!

  5. She should go rogue – sit down with pencil and paper and list off every secret, every rumour and every bone she ever had to pick with Prime Minister Mister Clean and his troupe of trained seals, then hire a publicist to book her on a cross-Canada "Singin' Like a Canary" Tour (t-shirts for sale in the lobby). And see what happens.

    • I think they have to sign some sort of confidentiality agreement to say mum

      I could be wrong, but I thought I heard that

    • But then she'd forgo the parting $1-million dollar life insurance policy the CON stonecutters are ready to issue for silence/voting against your principles…

  6. I've really heard enough about Guergis. What about the Hill Times' report that Milliken is set to rule on That Privilege Motion this week?

  7. 'Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay said MPs want to know whether taxpayers' money was spent wisely and without undue influence.'

    Martha, taxpayers money was NOT SPENT,
    Jaffer's 3 proposals never got past first base…..obviously Jaffer has no influence.

    Committee is investigating the govt not spending money,
    not caving into the requests of a former MP…..
    committee should look into how much taxpayers money THEY are wasting with what appears to be a committee for spectacle purposes only.

    • How much of taxpayer's money was spent entertaining the proposals that Jaffer put forward before they were rejected? How many meetings did Guergis or Jaffer secure that they would not have, had they not been (or been directly linked to) an MP?

      Attempted influence peddling is wrong, too.

      • Are you sure you want to start counting the waste of taxpayers` money over the years when politicos in Ottawa take turns wining and dining each other for favours.

      • Ignatieff has been promoting his new book; "True Patriot Love", for a year or so all on the tax payer's dime.

      • Attempted influence peddling? Oh, how I would love to see Iggy try turning that into an attack!

  8. The new spin by the Tories on Ignatieff is he is a male chauvinists elitists of the political class. They have been calling Ignatieff Mr. Zsohar or Mr. Zzzzz, because of his calling Helena, Mrs. Jaffer. The spin also insinuates that Ignatieff believes Helena is not a person, because if Jaffer is connected to blow then Helena can't think for herself and she must be connected to blow and the mob. Hmmmm….Then again it's only spin.

Sign in to comment.