Monday, March 23, 2009

On reacting to fast reactions

Yes, Jurist, sometimes I take your bait. It's usually a Saturday, in case you haven't noticed...:)

Um, don't read too much into my putting this in Bob Fife's hands. That was more to put the Ignatieff-Mulroney phone call news into the category of, well, not untruth but let's call it "gossip" kind of journalism, the breathless "look what I've got" kind of reporting. I would never suggest that a reporter would make up something, maybe that they're guilty of stenography, but clearly not that they would manufacture. My reaction to the Fife story - and purposeful inclusion of him - was really in the oh-that's-interesting-but-who-really-cares-that-much kind of category.

And my pointing out the opposition all favouring a broad inquiry into Mulroney-Schreiber matters was to say that this is the substance of the Liberal party's position on Mr. Mulroney at the moment. There is no other substantive measure to take. That's what should count, not a pithy phone call. To say that a phone call signifies a terrifying shift to the right and imputes scandal, that's overreaching at best. I think the words that were used were "right-wing and scandal-ridden" as being attributed to Mr. Ignatieff's likely governing style based on this phone call. Overreaching. And to say there's "silence" now under Ignatieff on Mulroney...well, I don't hear a lot from any political parties at the moment on Mulroney-Schreiber given that the matter is now before the Oliphant Commission and it's de-politicized, for all intents and purposes. What should he say? That he objected to Mr. Mulroney's motion last week for a delay in the proceedings?

Always a pleasure, Jurist, but we will have to agree to disagree on the significance of the birthday phone call. Until next time...:)