What Will Happen in the Presidential Primaries This Week?

So this coming week we will see the Presidential Primaries moving into Nevada, Michigan and South Carolina. Every State will be very different and interesting for a variety of reasons. Is Michigan is Mitt’s last stand? Could South Carolina be the same for Edwards? Will race be a response factor for Obama support in South Carolina where 51% of the Democrats are black? Labour and Hispanics are trump cards in Nevada and which Democrat has them in their hand?

Will women, youth and independents continue to show up on the Democratic side? How long can Giuliani bide his time before he makes a move? Could it be he is awaiting too long and have nothing left for the kick he will in the final laps going into and through Super Tuesday?

I see the CNN folks who call themselves the “Best Political Team on Television” have backed off believing polls and pundits and spinmeisters in their commentaries this morning. They are not calling who they predict to we the winners and losers. They are not even identifying the leaders and laggards as such.

That discretion is very wise because everything is in play and even gender and race will be part of the conversations this week. Let’s hope it does not get framed and focused as being about racism and feminism in the process.

Now if we can only get MSM TV to go a bit deeper into the real issues. Recession is real and new on the agenda and will change the complexion of the campaigns from here on in. Expect Illegal Immigration to fade but not go away as the Republican candidates try to show themselves ad the masters of the fiscal universe. They will duck the reality of the dismal deficits created by the two Bush presidents and the surplus left by the Clinton presidency...some much for the so-called big-spending Democrats.

The Edmonton Journal Starts a Pod Cast

Archie McLean, the Edmonton Journal’s Legislature Reporter has started a pod cast. Daveberta and I are the inaugural guests on this new initiative. Congratulations Archie and thanks for doing this.

Give it a listen

The Ethics Committee Should Stand Down and Lets Get On With the Public Inquiry

UPDATE: There is a piece in the Globe and Mail today Monday Jan 14/08 by William Kaplan - the man who wrote the book on this Schreiber/Mulroney stuff...literally. He concurs with my position on the emerging role of the Ethics Committee continuation of hearings...time to go to the Inquiry and for the politicians to get out of the way.

If the Ethics Committee is to continue to look into the Schreiber/Mulroney Affair will they be able to be effective, given their rules and the partisan nature of their procedures? For example the committee failed, refused or neglected to put Mr. Mulroney under oath but did so with Mr. Schreiber. Why?

Dr. Johnston’s report outlines 17 questions about former Prime Minister Mulroney’s business dealings with Mr. Schreiber. They are:

1. What were the business and financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney?
2. Was there an agreement reached by Mr. Mulroney while still a sitting prime minister?
3. If so, what was that agreement, when and where was it made?
4. Was there an agreement reached by Mr. Mulroney while still sitting as a Member of Parliament or during the limitation periods prescribed by the 1985 ethics code?
5. If so, what was that agreement, when and where was it made?
6. What payments were made, when and how and why?
7. What was the source of the funds for the payments?
8. What services, if any, were rendered in return for the payments?
9. Why were the payments made and accepted in cash?
10. What happened to the cash; in particular, if a significant amount of cash was received in the U.S., what happened to that cash?
11. Were these business and financial dealings appropriate considering the position of Mr. Mulroney as a current or former prime minister and Member of Parliament?
12. Was there appropriate disclosure and reporting of the dealings and payments?
13. Were there ethical rules or guidelines which related to these business and financial dealings? Were they followed?
14. Are there ethical rules or guidelines which currently would have covered these business and financial dealings? Are they sufficient or should there be additional ethical rules or guidelines concerning the activities of politicians as they transition from office or after they leave office?
15. What steps were taken in processing Mr. Schreiber’s correspondence to Prime Minister Harper of March 29, 2007?
16. Why was the correspondence not passed on to Prime Minister Harper?
17. Should the PCO have adopted any different procedures in this case?

I don’t think any of these are political questions but they all have political implications. My hope is that the Ethics Committee stands down on this and lets Mr. Harper and Dr. Johnston get on with setting up the Public Inquiry.

Kudos to Harper in His Handling of the Johnston Report and Calling a Public Inquiry

Mr. Harper strikes the right balance in the ordering of a Public Inquiry into the Schreiber/Mulroney Affair. Wait until the Ethics Committee has done its work and then get Dr. Johnston to deal more succinctly with the terms of reference of the public inquiry. That way we can focus on the real issues uncovered in the Ethics Committee work instead of going wandering into a dark room hoping to bump into the right issues that need to be inquired.

Sr. Johnston says “I (he) believe the inquiry can be efficient and focused, without the need for numerous interveners. The inquiry can and should steer clear of partisan political positions since the advance of such positions is not the purpose of the inquiry and would be contrary to the public interest.”

We know from Dr. Johnston’s report to the Prime Minister under his terms of reference that he believes Mr. Mulroney was not under oath when he appeared before the Ethics Committee and he left many unanswered questions regarding his cash payments from Mr. Schreiber.

Here is a damaging quote from Dr. Johnston’s report in that regard:
“In my work to fulfill my mandate under the Terms of Reference, I have concluded that the concerns of many Canadians arose from the fact that a former prime minister took large cash payments from someone now implicated in questionable transactions, and whose extradition for various charges has been sought and obtained by the Government of Germany. The suspicions raised by these cash payments were compounded by Mr. Mulroney’s silence on the matter. As Mr. Mulroney acknowledged before the Ethics Committee, taking those cash payments “created an impression of impropriety”. As the stories about the cash payments became more and more widely reported, and as they remained unanswered by Mr. Mulroney himself, suspicions among Canadians intensified. Mr. Mulroney told the Ethics Committee that the circumstances that led to this “impression of impropriety” amounted to a serious error in judgment on his part. Mr. Mulroney also acknowledged that it had been an “unwise decision” to remain silent on these matters.”

Dr. Johnston says that “one important element of the inquiry – perhaps the most important elements – was to let Canadians hear from their former prime minister about these suspicious dealings with Mr. Schreiber. …the concern is that the transactions involving cash payments that created an impression of impropriety could reflect adversely on the high office of prime minister.”

That the rub Dr. Johnson…you got it!

I go after Stephen Harper pretty hard in the Blog but when he does the right thing I try to be equally aggressive in my praise. This is on eof those latter incidences. The quick and wise decision by the Prime Minister to go to a public inquiry but after the Ethics Committee is finished and to once again refer the terms of reference for the inquiry to Dr. Johnston is very wise. That wisdom becomes very self-evident if one reviews Dr. Johnston's excellent report and thoughtful recommendations.

Johnston outlines the inquiry questions, issues and their relevancy in his report. The inquiry process is a finder of fact – not a trier of fact. That is for a Court deal with. The Ethics Committee is neither. Its work is pretty much done but if it has anything to add or uncover based on the Johnston report it should do so expeditiously. Otherwise since it can’t lead, and sure can’t follow – it should do the right thing now and get out of the way.

Three Candidates in Calgary Egmont PC Nomination Race

So it is official. Nominations closed in Calgary Egmont today and there are three candidates vying for the PC nomination. They are:


Jonathan Dennis
http://www.jonathandenis.com

Vicki Engel
http://www.vickiengel.ca/

Don Middleton
http://donmiddleton.ca/


The nomination voting will take place on Saturday January 19, 2008 from 12:00 Noon MST until 5:00 pm MST at the Kingsland Community Centre located at 505 - 78 Ave SW

This time I hope actual PROGRESSIVE Conservatives will show up and participate.