So, Let's Define "Sleaze", If We May...

Apparently, tough questions reserved for Conservatives alone

Let's take a quick survey here. Which of the following scenarios is sleazier?

Dragging an alleged big-money offer to a deceased politician out from the grave for partisan gain, or asking the people flinging those accusations the kind of tough questions that various confusing ambiguities regarding the situation demand?

Garth Turner, you're up first:

"The lowest and sleaziest moment thus far in a sad tale: Mike Duffy asking Cadman’s daughter, live on TV, if her dying dad was “fuzzy on drugs” when he told her about the Conservative offer. To her credit, she did not tell him to get stuffed."

At face value, Turner would seem to have a point. It seems like a fairly sleazy question.

Then one remembers that Cadman was, at the time, dying of skin cancer. He was literally within the last few days of his life, likely being administered pain killers to help him cope with the notable agony dying of malignant melanoma.

The question addressed to Jodi Cadman should be considered a tough question for a reason. Tough questions aren't obligated to be tough.

While perhaps dabbling on the side of the uncouth, the question warrants consideration.

Especially when one considers that the claims being made by Jodi and Dona Cadman actually contradict the public statements of Cadman himself -- who publicly denied being offered anything in return for his vote -- it becomes especially prescient.

Meanwhile, Turner and his colleagues in the Liberal party have been going to town on "Cadscam" (as its been dubbed by various partisan bloggers) despite all the confusing inconsistencies in the entirety of the tale.

(And if one doesn't suspect that Turner himself is eager for a little revenge after being thrown out of the Conservative caucus, consider these comments:

"When I was a Conservative member of parliament, before that party threw me out, I heard the prime minister call Chuck Cadman a poor MP The prime minister said Mr. Cadman was more concerned with ethics and with the country than he was with political organization and power.

Mr. Speaker, I have always wondered why the prime minister was so angry at the late Chuck Cadman, but now we know a lot more. Was it simply because he could not be bribed?"

Disgusting.

Was the offer of a million-dollar life insurance policy to a dying MP in exchange for his vote sleazy if it indeed happened? Absolutely.

But is dragging the entire allegation -- and Mr Cadman's memory along with it -- back through the mud again under extremely curious pretenses sleazy? The answer to this question is equally absolute, and the answer to this question is yes.

One has to remember that this is the same party that insisted a Commons Ethics Committee had to be called over rehashed (and extremely unconvincing) accusations against Brian Mulroney by Karlheinz Schreiber. Now, they're insisting that an Ethics Committee has to be called over another would-be scandal, this time based on rehashed (and extremely confusing) accusations.

It's pure sleaze. The situation itself is sleazy enough. One has to wonder how Garth Turner thinks he will benefit by heaping another helping of sleaze right on top it.

Sexism Strikes Again?

Or does it? Only the Liberals know for sure

This just in! Apparently, Belinda Stronach is a woman.

Go figure, I hadn’t noticed either.

But apparently, she is indeed a woman, and as such the Federal Liberal Women’s Caucus has stepped forward to declare that much of criticism of Stronach is sexist.
Wow. I never saw that coming. Not in a million years. Nope, no sir…

Anyway, following the reaction to Belinda Stronach crossing the floor to sit with the perennially crooked Federal Liberals, the Liberal Women’s Caucus has stepped forward to decry and bemoan the sexism allegedly being directed at the embattled MP.
Ontario Conservative Bob Runciman called Stronach (a woman considered by some to be among the most attractive Members of Parliament) “a dipstick – an attractive one – but a dipstick.”

Alberta Conservative MLA Tony Abbot declared that Stronach had “whored herself for power.” Unlike the CBC, CTV allowed Abbot to elaborate by also printing, “ Some people prostitute themselves for different costs or different prices. She sold out for a cabinet position."

Liberal MP Judy Sgro weighed in, saying, “"I think it's important that we try to raise the level of discourse and debate and they shouldn't be reduced to the kinds of throw-away comments that people are clearly using last night and this morning. So I would call on Mr. Harper to apologize to Ms. Stronach and to women of Canada, and ask his colleagues to very much do the same so that we can try and restore some level of respect and discussion here in Ottawa."

Because Stephen Harper is obviously responsible for the comments made by Alberta and Ontario MLAs. And the Liberal Women’s Caucus isn’t licking their lips at the concept of Harper tucking tail on their behalf. No, not at all.

Linda Trimble, professor of Political Science at the University of Alberta stepped into the debate, saying, "When she's being called a whore and a dipstick – well, that's intensely personal, and it goes to her integrity. Those are not the kinds of comments made when male politicians cross the floor."

So what of Stronach’s integrity? She was elected by her constituency as a Conservative, but there have been plenty of MPs cross the floor to sit with other parties, right?

Then again, when Liberal MP David Kilgour crossed the floor, he didn’t do so to sit as a critic, or even as a member of the Conservative party – he did so to sit as an independent. When Conservative MP Chuck Cadman crossed, he did likewise.
When John Bryden crossed to sit as an Independent, he would eventually sit as a Conservative… but not for eight days afterward.

Even the venerable Joe Clark crossed the floor once, to sit as an… independent. Does anyone else see a pattern here? Maybe one that Belinda Stronach doesn’t fit?
Even Deborah Gray (I would like to note, also a woman) once crossed the floor, to sit as an… independent. She, however, would eventually rejoin the Canadian Alliance. Likewise with Valerie Meredith.

Here in the Nexus, if there’s anything I do, it’s call a spade a spade. Frankly, it’s fairly obvious what these individuals are trying to do. They’re following one of the cardinal rules of politics: make it hurt to take you on.

By ideologizing the issue of Belinda Stronach’s betrayal, these individuals are out to make it impossible to criticize Stronach without being branded as sexist. This is similar to attempts made by the proponents of same-sex marriage to make it impossible to criticize moves to legalize same-sex marriage without being branded as homophobic, or make it impossible to not support affirmative action programs without being accused of racism. The list goes on and on, and it’s actually a fairly effective mudslinging tactic.

Because it’s becoming fairly obvious that it’s one thing for a woman to have “great shoes,” (words of Anne McLellan) but it’s entirely an obvious to question the integrity of an MP who has just stabbed her constituents in the back.