Taxpayers Are Funding Harper's Smear Campaign

The steaming turd has been found ... and it is in the Harper PMO:

On Monday, PMO communications officer Erica Meekes sent The Advance details of an engagement that netted Trudeau a $10,000 fee, but left Georgian College with a $4,118 shortfall. The information was sent via email with the caveat it be referred to as coming from a “source,” not the PMO, when used.

“As a follow-up to the growing controversy over the weekend on Justin Trudeau charging charities for his speaking services, I have enclosed further materials that demonstrate the scope of this practice, cost on the organizations, and in many cases, poor outcomes and large deficits as a result of his speaking tour,” the email stated. “As discussed, these materials are provided to you on background, and should be attributed to a ‘source.’”

The material included invoices, a promotional poster and an accommodation receipt for the Toronto Four Seasons. Meekes wrote, “To be fair, there is an in-house yoga studio at the Four Seasons!”

When asked in a telephone interview why Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office was sending out unsolicited documentation, Meekes said the PMO routinely reaches out to the media.

This is the first time, however, such financial information was released to The Advance from the PMO.

Normally, such work is the purview of partisan researchers.

Meekes’ email said to contact Patrick Brown, “the local MP for Georgian College,” for comment.

In an email from Ottawa, Brown said Trudeau shouldn’t be let off the hook for the Georgian loss, even if it occurred before he entered politics.

The outrage here is not that Harper is trying to smear Trudeau.  You would have to be the village idiot not to expect that.

The outrage should be that Harper is using public money in the form of PMO resources to carry out partisan attacks.  As taxpayers, we fund The Privy Council to assist the Prime Minister in managing the levers of government effectively.  We DO NOT provide those funds for the Prime Minister to use them for their puerile, juvenile desire to wipe out anyone who resembles a threat to their status as "dear leader".

It is time to take the trash out at 24 Sussex.

[Update 19/6/13 7:30 AM]

A few interesting tidbits from the Calgary Herald this morning:

NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus chided Harper for allowing controversy over Trudeau's "ethical misjudgment" to be turned into an issue about his own judgment.

"The issue I think that Canadians have to ask themselves (is): Doesn't the prime minister have more important things to do in terms of serving our country than running a black ops operation against the Liberal leader?" Angus said.

"It's not becoming of the prime minister."

Angus said the Tories are blowing the political gift Trudeau handed his rivals when he chose to voluntarily disclose that he's earned $277,000 making speeches to 17 different groups since becoming an MP in 2008.

"It was gift-wrapped for you ... and just out of sheer stupidity, block-headedness and spite, you're blowing it," he said.

This is typical of the NDP the last little while.  It seems that they can't focus on the real issues at hand without looking to see if there's an adequate attack on the Liberals.  Angus is correctly criticizing Harper for his abuse of the PMO function, but he then turns around and basically says that he's really criticizing Harper because his team has done such a sloppy job of attacking Trudeau.

Note to the NDP:  I realize you feel this overpowering need to attack the Liberals.  But frankly, that shouldn't be where your focus is.  You are titled "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" for a reason - start paying attention to the finagling across the aisle, and spend less of your time futzing about and trying to make everything a "two pronged attack".  It isn't effective, and it plays to Harper's tune.

However, Harper's office made no apologies for its role in fanning the flames of the controversy.

"News flash: the office of the leader of the Opposition, the Liberal leader's office and the Prime Minister's Office all engage in political communications," said PMO spokesperson Julie Vaux in an email.

"Trudeau's taxpayer-paid staff are currently calling all the charities (about returning the speaking fees) and that's supposed to be his personal business."

Vaux said Trudeau only agreed to reimburse the Grace Foundation after the media pounced on the story and "our caucus shamed him into doing so."

News flash for Ms. Vaux:  Canadians expect you to do your job - namely assist the Prime Minister in running the country.  You are not doing this.  You are engaging in partisan mud-slinging on taxpayer dollars.  This is not acceptable.

Conservative MP Ben Lobb, meanwhile, told the House of Commons he intends to ask federal ethics watchdog Mary Dawson to investigate whether Trudeau broke conflict of interest rules by voting on a bill involving the rights of labour unions when he's accepted "over $100,000 in personal payments from unions."

Really?  Talk about scraping the barrel looking for scandal.  The Conservatives have clearly lost sight of what governing means.

The Conservatives maintain it was unethical of Trudeau to ever accept a fee for speaking to charitable organizations, either before or after becoming an MP. And they include municipalities, educational institutions, school boards and other non-profit entities in their definition of charity.

However, one of their own — former NHL coach Jacques Demers, whom Harper appointed to the Senate — admitted Tuesday that he too has accepted payment for speeches to literacy groups and others the Conservatives describe as charities.

"I've taken and I've given a lot," Demers said.

The complaints the Harperites are throwing about only have meaning when they are lily-white.  They aren't.  We know they aren't.  


[/Update]

That's A Criticism?

So, the right wing media in Canada has gotten its knickers into a twist because Justin Trudeau has managed to make a very nice living for himself on the speaking circuit.

Last I checked, quite a few politicians in this country make quite a nice bit of money on the side doing the speaking tour thing.  This is neither news, nor surprising.  The speaking circuit is both a means to keep one's public profile up, as well as make a bit of cash on the side.  Trudeau may have made a substantial chunk of change doing it, but that's hardly a crime.

It comes as no surprise to me that Brad Wall decided to stand up on his hind legs and bray about the $20,000 that Justin Trudeau made for appearing at a literacy conference.  This is obviously the kind of indirect attack that the Harper Politburo ... er ... PMO ... has decided to start using to attack Justin Trudeau.  Having failed entirely to get any traction with their usual ham-fisted attack ads.

Charity events don't come together for free.  I don't care whether you are talking about renting the hall, catering or the speakers.  It's not free.  Ironically, this is where charity organizations and business intersect.  A caterer doesn't (usually) provision an event for free - they usually have a price that includes a nice little profit for them in it.  The charity ultimately makes its money off the difference between ticket sales and the expenses incurred.  

If you are running a small business, it's the same thing.  You are hoping like hell that you can make enough money to put it all together and make enough profit to move on to the next step.

I find it more than a little suspicious that months after the fact there is suddenly a bunch of faux outrage over Trudeau's appearance fees.

When the government is caught in the midst of a disastrous scandal over Senate Expenses, has lost some 3.1 Billion dollars of taxpayer money and is lining up its next attack on Canada's middle class, the Harperites are busily looking to find a squirrel to distract public attention from their malfeasance.

[Update 17/06/13 12:30 PM]

If you were thinking that my supposition that this whole idiotic thing is a setup on the part of the Harperites, consider the following:

Grace Foundation Charity A Failed Conservative Stunt

It turns out that the person who wrote the letter complaining to Trudeau about the outcome of his speech has close ties to the HarperCon$.  Surprisingly close ties.

... and to complain in March of 2013 about a speech given in July of 2012 seems just a tiny bit ridiculous.

[/Update]

[Update #2 18/06/13 7:45 AM]

Received via e-mail last night, it becomes clear that the PMO is acting politically in this matter:

PM's Office Sends Details of Trudeau's Talk At Georgian

First, they are digging back to years before Trudeau was elected to the House of Commons.

Second, taxpayers are paying for this.  In short, we have the smoking gun here that shows that Harper is inappropriately utilizing the offices of government to carry out partisan political attacks.

[/Update #2]

The Next Con$ Angle of Attack On Justin Trudeau

More or less as I had anticipated, after failing entirely to characterize Justin Trudeau as "in over his head", the Harper Conservatives are turning to their next line of attack.

This time, the angle is to go after Justin's father and his legacy, thereby "blackening" the Trudeau name.  The writer of the column on the National Post website is positively drooling over the content of the coming "blackened biography" - claiming that the biographies that have come before are all pandering to the "legend" of Pierre Trudeau.

Of course, that doesn't surprise me.  The "Law-and-Order-Except-For-Conservatives" Con$ have always despised things that Pierre Trudeau did - especially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which severely limits the government's ability to attack its own citizens.

It will be a classic "guilt-by-association" attack.  I am sure that the Conservative attack ads for the next few months will contain little bits about various things that Pierre Trudeau did, and will try to imply that Justin will do the same things.  Whatever is in those ads will be spun and distorted beyond any recognizable version of reality.

Or they may just attack the elder (and deceased) Trudeau viciously and hope that it is enough to damage the Liberals both as a party and Justin Trudeau as a leader.

It is as predictable as it is childish, as mean-spirited as it is ludicrous.  Canadians are tired of the constant political character assassination of the Conservatives.  At long last they are finally awakening to the reality that Harper is nothing more than a schoolyard bully who will do anything he can dream up to maintain his grip on power.

Ignatieff Puts Harper In Perspective

The first time I heard Michael Ignatieff speak, it was several years ago when he read his book The Rights Revolution on CBC as part of The Massey Lectures on Ideas.

I remember thinking "wow, but this guy's an amazing speaker" at the time. Yes, his style is a bit ornate, but it pulled me in and made me pay attention to what he had to say...and what he had to say was articulate, reasoned and reasonable.

Well, so far his response to the latest round of Conservative character assassination has been spot on.

In his speech, the Liberal Leader hit directly at criticisms of the years he spent in Great Britain and the United States as a writer and academic, and elsewhere as a war reporter, saying that sometimes a person only sees how Canada is an inspiration to the world “from afar.”

“Stephen Harper doesn't understand that. Stephen Harper thinks if you've lived and worked outside the country you're somehow less of a Canadian,” he said to the Laborers International Union of North America.

“Is that the type of Canada you want? To have a government decide who is a good Canadian and a bad Canadian? Who is a true Canadian and who is a false Canadian?

“You know and we know that no matter where we come from, where we live or have lived, we are all of us proud Canadians.”

As for Mr. Harper, he's engaging in his usual pugilistic politics of desperation. I can only hope that outside of Alberta, Canadians are seeing these ads for what they truly is - awful government.

Responding To The HarperCon$

Frankly, I think Ignatieff is dead right when he responds to the latest round of attack ads out of the HarperCon$:

"On a day when we've got record bankruptcies, (when) we've got unemployment skyrocketing, all this government can think of doing is running attack ads on me," he said. "This is the old style of politics. We are in the middle of a serious economic crisis. This government needs to grow up and do its job properly."

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

When You Have Nothing To Contribute ...

engage in character assassination - or at least that seems to be the HarperCon$ typical strategy.

A day after launching attack ads against Michael Ignatieff on the Internet, the Harper Conservatives are bringing out the big guns for a sustained and broad negative campaign against the Liberal Leader — launching six spots to run on national TV.

The Conservatives are stepping up their attacks on Mr. Ignatieff in order to end what they suggest has been a “free ride” for the Liberal Leader in the Canadian media.

... because nothing says "Good Government" like the governing party slagging their opponents, does it?

Whine Much, Mr. Taylor?

Talk about double standards. Over here, we find the founder of/CPoC party operative responsible for the ever-so-partisan "Blogging Tories".

It seems that he has his knickers in a twist because someone operating under the pseudonym "Grit Girl" on Youtube posted a video that was somewhat less than flattering to Mr. Harper and his government.

Apparently, in Mr. Taylor's mind, this is "out of bounds". Never mind the fact that the HarperCon$ already signalled that they are gearing up for more attack ads at the beginning of March; and Harper shifted gears into campaign mode at the Manning Center Conservative Whoop-up more recently.

Never mind that the Conservatives spent millions on a campaign of character assassination against Stephane Dion. Never mind that it's become fairly obvious that the blogging tories are essentially an astroturfing operation that takes its marching orders from Conservative HQ.

No, Mr. Taylor is all upset because someone who claims to be aligned with the Liberal party posted a video that he thinks is "too slick" that happens to be critical of his heroes in Ottawa. Apparently, attacking other politicians is reserved for the HarperCon$ - nobody is supposed to critique them.

You Know Their Politics Are Bankrupt ...

When the only response is to attack the person. It appears that the Harper Conservatives have sunk below bankruptcy when it comes to having actual debates.

Tories say there will be three themes to their attacks: that Mr. Ignatieff is an out-of-touch elitist; that he flip-flops (they will cite his shifting positions on a carbon tax, on coalition with the other opposition parties, and on Israel's 2006 bombing of Lebanon); and that he's a fair-weather Canadian.

Strikes me that when the only tool you can think of involves attacking the person, not the policy or ideas that they represent you've almost hit the Godwin's Law line. Ad hominem attacks are the language of the bankrupt - the Conservatives have run out of policy, they've run out of script, so they turn to slander and innuendo to make political points.

The "talking points" that they want to raise against Ignatieff do not suggest to me a man who is a poor leader, or that is short of ideas. They suggest that the Conservatives are scared. They don't want to face Ignatieff in a fair forum, so they are returning to the gutter politics that they have played before.

It is disappointing, even if it is predictable.

Harper Apologizes?

Sort of...they edited the offending website, but it's not like the Con$ have had the grace or brains to shut the website down.

No, instead, they continue to play from the Karl Rove "lie, smear and distort as long as possible" playbook. In short, the Con$ continue to demonstrate that not only are they utterly classless, but that they have no meaningful platform - they ran out of script 18 months ago, and the script that's left is the one that Big Daddy doesn't want to admit exists.

It's the script embodied by bill C-484, the cutbacks to the very programs that benefit women and minorities, and recent attacks on the arts. All done with the cheering of C. McVety and the "social conservative" set (more accurately the Regressive Conservatives).

So Much For The High Road

Yesterday, we heard Stephen Harper bemoaning how he thought this was going to be a nasty acrimonious campaign filled with attacks, and this morning, we find that's exactly what he's doing.

Lovely. He wants Canadians to let him govern, and his idea of campaigning starts off with slagging his opponent. About all that tells me is that the HarperCon$ ran out of script about six months into their mandate and they haven't come up with any new ideas.

I suppose the other take on it is that his record in government is so devoid of any real accomplishments that he hasn't got much else to run on.

Conservatives: Running For Opposition

It seems to me that the HarperCon$ have lost sight of what it means to govern, and have digressed into their infantile state of being opposition to the Federal Liberals.

Con$ Attack Ads #20,542.

They spend more time trying to slag the Liberals than they do actually governing - and when they attempt to govern, we things like L'Affaire Bernier where we find out that our Foreign Affairs Minister is thinking with the wrong head!

If they want to play at being opposition while they are in government, perhaps we should oblige them by slamming them to third party status or lower in the next election.

I'll give you a hint, Mr. Harper, there's a country here that needs to be run like it means something - so far, all we've had out of your government is chest-thumping, ego stroking and ineptitude.

Is It Desperation?

Evilscientist's ruminations about the Cons latest round of attack/smear ads going after Dion got me thinking.

Is it really desperation on the part of the Cons, or perhaps it's really just the nastiness of this group coming to the surface?

I've argued for years that the most prominent of the Reform/Alliance/CPoC are fundamentally bullies. Guys like Jason Kenney, or Rob Anders. Generally speaking, they'll try to shout or sneer down anyone who dares question their wisdom. When Harper put John Baird into play as the Environment Minister, it was a pretty clear signal - 'Fine, you don't like me doing nothing, so I'll put someone in place who will shout down your criticisms' - which is more or less exactly what Baird's done.

Ultimately, the Conservative "attack ads" are little more than a bullying tactic. As Evilscientist pointed out, it really just tells us that the Cons don't have anything particularly good to tell Canadians about themselves.

As an aside, the Liberal Party youth wing has come up with their own ads which critique the Cons - not personally, but their government: here. (They're clearly aimed at a young crowd, but are an amusing poke at the Cons ... without getting into smear campaigning)