I liked Chuck Cadman. I also thought that what the Conservative Party did to him was on the murky side of wrong — it upheld its democratic principles, but at the expense of a good MP. The Cadman tragedy would have never happened in the federal party didn’t allow opportunistic forces to hijack meetings in return for a questionable, at best, boost in local membership levels. That is history though, and as the greatest Man ever said, “let the dead bury the dead”.
Now that accusations are coming out that two Conservative officials attempted to bribe the late MP for Surrey North, I have to admit that I’m having a bit of troubles following it. The original source of this new scandal is not only Mr. Cadman’s widow (which in itself isn’t that interesting), but is someone who is simultaneously running under the Conservative banner in Mr. Cadman’s former riding.
Mere and meek scribe that I am, I believe that the Prime Minister’s best move from here is to announce an RCMP investigation as soon as possible to put out this fire in its infancy. After all, why would a woman who wants to run for a political party suggest that said party was also acting against the law with regards to her late husband. It just doesn’t add up. I think what we will find is that, if the author — a reporter in B.C. — has crossed all his “t”s and dotted all his “i”s, either there were people in the Conservative Party who are guilty of corruption, or our candidate in Surrey North is equally guilty of lying. Perhaps more suggestive is the revelation that Paul Martin got an early transcript of the book; a curious courtesy afforded to a former PM and arch-rival of the current one if anything. Again, it might be nothing, but until the truth comes out, something about it seems just a bit too suspicious.
Just a further comment to the Opposition that flirts with this being an election trigger — 2004 saw a Canadian public that was willing to at least let the investigation play out before passing judgment. Heed the warning.
David wrote:
So, how does one instantly provide $1,000,000.00 of life insurance on somone’s life, a subject that is known to be close to death?. How about the medical, the underwriting approval, and the licensed insurance agent who takes the application, states the applicant is in good health and submits it for underwriting. This just simply could not happen. It seems like another bit of journalism fiction.
Posted on 28-Feb-08 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
An offer is quite different than actually being able to keep your promise; sounds perfectly logical that a politician would be the character cast in this story - even if it does turn out to be “fiction”.
Posted on 29-Feb-08 at 12:49 am | Permalink
Fiumara wrote:
According to Mike Duffy, Cadman was never offered a “life insurance” policy. Just think for a moment: no insurance company would ever insure a dying man.
Again, Duffy says that Cadman told him that the conservatives offered to cover his campaign costs if he ran as a conservative. Where is the scandal? He was never offered a cabinet post.
Posted on 29-Feb-08 at 1:57 am | Permalink
Chuck Cadman, Conservatives and connecting the dots at Bene Diction Blogs On wrote:
[…] Cadman actually said and what the Findlay/ Flanagan claim says. A Blogging Torie perspective - The Politic Published 9 minutes ago // Used for showing and hiding user information in the comment form […]
Posted on 29-Feb-08 at 4:44 am | Permalink
James Goneaux wrote:
Well, its not as if they offered him a cabinet post, ala Belinda…
Posted on 29-Feb-08 at 8:46 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Thanks, BeneDiction, for the link.
I have no problem believing that the reason Chuck Cadman voted to support the Liberal government was so that his wife would receive a greater payout if he died as a sitting member of parliament. I would have done the same.
If the government fell and he died during an election, his wife would have received much less.
However, it certainly is not putting your constituents first!
Posted on 29-Feb-08 at 11:31 am | Permalink