So I have had a chance to read James Travers' column with respect to Minister Emerson and the Softwood
Lumber deal. It makes me think that something else may be at play here. Let's review:
1) The Liberals postponed a Softwood Lumber deal so they could bash President Bush during the election campaign.
2) David Emerson claims to be a non-partisan guy so is it possible that he was frustrated with the Liberals playing partisan politics with the Lumber Industry and all he needed was a little nudge to switch sides?
3) This has caught the Liberals with their pants down and they are now trying to spin this against Minister Emerson
4) James Travers has a pipeline to the Paul Martin crew (if Warren Kinsella is to be believed) so if they wanted to get a story out it seems plausible that they would do it through Mr. Travers.
How am I doing so far?
Update: I thought about this post over lunch and I want to clarify one point. I do not doubt James Travers' motives here, I am confident that this is straight-up reportage. His story is based on what his sources are telling him. Whether we can believe his sources is an entirely different story but I do not mean to impune Mr. Traver's reporting abilities.
Update II: Well except for the fact that all the sources are anonymous.
Comments (16)
Greg check out my site for a photo of The Star’s website..its now dubbed it the ‘softwood scandal’ www.mkbraaten.com, unbelievable.
Posted by braaten | February 9, 2006 11:09 AM
Posted on February 9, 2006 11:09
I think that you’re right on. Seems to me that the Red Star is fomenting as much discord as possible, in a liberal friendly way, of course.
I’ve got a feeling that pushing Emerson may not be a good thing to do. Has the appearance of a winner and they’re bad people to try and push around.
Must be painful to have a Star defect, maybe even a leadership candidate. Wonder how many other Liberals are going to leave?
Posted by Pat | February 9, 2006 1:01 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 13:01
“How am I doing so far?”
Much better.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | February 9, 2006 1:12 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 13:12
Carry on. This same guy who had no trouble (the article has industry sources saying Emerson talked them out of the deal) following this course of action (bashing Bush while privately giving him everything he wanted), is now on Harper’s front bench. How do like them apples? Nice catch guys.
Posted by Greg | February 9, 2006 1:21 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 13:21
“Nice catch guys.”
The ethical pitfalls of governing are many. Harper’s people will inevitably fall into some of them. Fortunately for the NDP, they’ll always have the moral high ground, as they will never govern the country.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | February 9, 2006 1:52 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 13:52
Keep this up and you guys won’t either. Not for long anyway.
Posted by Greg | February 9, 2006 1:58 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 13:58
We libertarians? We don’t have a hope in hell anyway.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | February 9, 2006 2:07 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 14:07
We should start a “no hopers” club. You and me, OC. No hope since 2006.
Posted by Greg | February 9, 2006 2:12 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 14:12
SO THE LIBERALS HAD A SOFTWOOD DEAL LAST NOVEMBER?
IF this is TRUE…Paul Martin has a LOT of explaining to do…
HE and ONLY HE had the power to resolve this thing.
But NO!
Paul Martin decided it was more expedient to use the softwood issue during an election …use it to bash the big bad U.S…to make HIMSELF LOOK GOOD…at the EXPENSE of the softwood lumber industry!
ALL the more reason to throw the Liberal bums OUT!
Posted by hlh | February 9, 2006 2:22 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 14:22
At least socialism has a corrupt and incompetent champion in the Liberals, with their statist day care, gun registry, buy every constituency with a government “service” approach. I ain’t got nobody. The CPC is the closest and I can’t even hit them with a rock from here.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | February 9, 2006 2:23 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 14:23
“ALL the more reason to throw the Liberal bums OUT!”
We already did that. You mean consign them to political oblivion, I think.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | February 9, 2006 2:26 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 14:26
I originally posted this on Strongworld:
Try this one on for size.
Emerson has a compromise. A compromise has pluses and minuses.
Emerson says to Mr. Dithers: “Here’s the deal. Here are the pluses. Here are the minuses.”
Paul and the Board say “Minuses?” All run in circles shouting “Flee. Flee.”
Emerson is castigated for telling them they need to sell the deal.
His deal is still on the table. Harper picks up the deal with all the original minuses and a few more.
He may think the deal is worth making at the price.
Posted by Chris | February 9, 2006 2:31 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 14:31
At least socialism has a corrupt and incompetent champion in the Liberals
Like I said, no hope. :)
Posted by Greg | February 9, 2006 2:48 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 14:48
They could have bashed Bush regardless of any deal. They bash indescriminately. Crazy.
Posted by canadianna | February 9, 2006 3:10 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 15:10
Chris makes an interesting point. If only 75% of the penalties back and higher stumpage fees is your idea of a good deal, it should have been signed when it hit the negotiating table.
Me? I’m not sure that’s a win. And I’m not being facetious there: I’m really not sure.
Guess we’re going to find out soon.
Posted by Damian | February 9, 2006 3:59 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 15:59
So why did the industry guy on Mike Duffy Live say yesterday that there was no deal on the table? How is this a scandal, for crying out loud, particularly one that blames the CPC for the Liberals sitting on a deal that wasn’t a deal?
Posted by Candace | February 10, 2006 3:26 PM
Posted on February 10, 2006 15:26