yes how refreshing ... i saw the interview also

i am a tiny bit less cynical this fine morning

It will be interesting to see how it plays out........

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...004/story.html

Oh FFS. Typical sycophantic BS from the Herald.

"This is what stands out about the prime minister's performance in the House this week: He's back, if not to his old form, then something close to it. It took Harper all of 10 seconds to send Sen. Mike Duffy, who'd seized centre ice earlier in the week with an explosive tale of skulduggery in the Prime Minister's Office, back to the penalty box. "Mr. Duffy now says he is a victim because I told him he should repay his expenses," the prime minister said Wednesday. "You're darn right I told him he should repay his expenses." Kaboom!"

Perhaps Harper did tell him to pay back his expenses, (expenses which the PMO and the Senate Government leadership had previously told Duffy were justified).

According to Duffy, this conversation took place in the presence of JUST THE THREE of us.

Duffy left (one can suppose), Harper turns to Wright and says "Just make it happen". Wright makes it happen . This gets out to the public. Wright is fired after making a forced statement that "he acted alone".

With me so far?

June 5th: Harper states unequivocally that no-one in the PMO had any knowledge of Wright cutting a cheque (a cheque that mysteriously can't be found in any account where it should have left a trace).

Now (to cut to the chase) it turns out that Harper was lying on June 5th. It is not credible that he was unaware that reportedly 13 members of the senior PMO staff knew (before June 5th) what had been done. The number was admitted to be "a few" by Harper in the commons this week.

Meanwhile, the PMO and the Senate Government leadership has put up a motion to suspend the 3 Senators who are (now) perceived to be political embarrassments for Harper. Without pay and benefits or due process. Why?

Now it is reported that the Cons are putting a closure motion on Monday? Why?

Because Harper wants to get this whole cover up off the front page asap (although putting the Senate motion in the first place was a strategic and tactical disaster, no doubt managed by Kovak, the new head-boy-in-short-trousers and successor to Wright). He wants to change the channel to this nebulous EU trade deal which might or might not be ratified before the next election.

Most importantly he wants to change the channel before he has to face his base in Calgary where, as it stands, he might well be booed off the podium.

Tot Fleisch.

He might well be booed-off in Ontario, but Calgary...not likely!

From Duffy's speech in the Senate: (I'll not quote but the gist was that Harper said to him), I don't care what we said about your expenses claims. People don't understand the rules. It's the perception in the media that's the problem. I can't sell the rules to our base.

All of that's just white noise. The significant narrative is that Harper is kicking the butts of greedy senators, kept the country from going into recession and pulled in a wealth creating free trade deal with the EU. I suspect more people will applaud him for getting tough on the senators than be absorbed in the detail of who said what to whom etc. He positions boy Trudeau and Mulcair as defenders of the privileges of senators. It could all blow up in his face still.

Your white noise is my truth. Your significant narrative is just for me Harper's spin doctor messaging. i.e. a bunch of venal self serving lies.

We'll see won't we?

White noise is white noise truth or otherwise. It plays well to those who are always on the lookout for something like this but questionable how wide the appeal is.

Harper invented the art of spin doctoring?

I pity you if you think the truth doesn't matter. You are no doubt a reliable conservative voter. Actually, I forget. are you a citizen or just a cynic of no fixed abode?

I didn't suggest that Harper invented spin-doctoring, did I? There have been other politicians who are or were equally venal, but that's irrelevant to what each of us said.

I never said the truth didn't matter. However politics isn't something that I would expect anything other than an economy of the actualite.

I have not yet performed the heartfelt O Canada of a citizen.

Obviously Harper spins his message. No successful politician does otherwise. His success may be unappealing to his detractors.

You did say the truth doesn't matter, you called it white noise if it conflicts with the political message. I'm glad you're not a citizen because quite frankly your opinion doesn't matter, does it?

But just FYI, Wallin's lawyer (one Terrance O'Sullivan) has just been on CBC to say that on May 17th, Wallin received an e-mail from Ray Novak and Senator LeBreton giving her 30 minutes to resign as a Senator. Wallin forwarded this to her lawyer who recognized that the PMO was trying to control the news cycle, and after consulting his client offered that she would voluntarily recuse herself from the caucus.

Novak (and by implication Harper) agreed and this happened. But LeBreton immediately reneged on the compromise and issued a press release (in time for the news cycle) stating that Wallin had resigned.

The beat goes on.

Not so, informed opinions matter as other citizens may be influenced.

I think the white noise metaphor is apt for those who want to focus on a bigger picture; equally, insistence on legitimate use of political power is a valid criticism. Time will tell which judgement prevails.

Sorry, been away having a life.

Could you parse that for me? Because as it stands it appears to have no intelligible content.

Content is overrated.

Well, Harper seems to think so.

Here's my suggestion for Thomas Mulcair's approach in Question Period on Monday (assuming Harper shows up).

Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that Canada has been a member of the UKUSA "The Five Eyes", for several decades? Yes or no?

PM: Yes, Nigel Wright must have known that, but I was unaware.

Mulcair: Is the Prime Minister aware that the CSEC and the NSA have an agreement to share communication intercepts from third parties if deemed to be in their National interests? Yes or no?

PM: I'd like to talk about the EU-Canada trade agreement now. Anyway, Nigel, excuse me Ray Kovak, must have known that, but he never told me.

Mulcair: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the whole course of the negotiations about this EU-Canada trade pact, Chancellor Merkel's cellphone was being monitored by the Five Eyes? Yes or no?

PM: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter for tomorrow. Today I'd like to point out that I know absolutely nothing at all. Honestly.

Mulcair: **** off loser.